Energy Requirements in Critically Ill Patients: How Close Are Our Estimates?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A retrospective analysis of 55 mechanically ventilated critically ill patients was conducted to determine adequacy of nutritional support (total parenteral nutrition or enteral nutrition) according to requirements established by indirect calorimetry. Patients who received 90% to 110% of the established energy requirements as measured by indirect calorimetry were defined as adequately fed. At the time of the indirect calorimetry measurements, all patients were receiving their targeted nutritional support, as assessed by the unit dietitian, who used predictive formulas to assess patients. Indirect calorimetry results showed that 25% of the patients were overfed (receiving >110% of energy requirements), 35% were underfed (receiving <90% of energy requirements), and 40% were adequately fed (receiving 90% to 110% of energy requirements). We determined that critically ill patients with a body mass index <20 kg/m2 were the most likely group to be assessed inappropriately by available regression equations. If indirect calorimetry measurement is unavailable, we suggest using an empiric formula of 37 kcal/kg for critically ill patients with a body mass index <20 kg/m2.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".