Guidelines, Guidelines, Guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past decade, clinical guidelines for nutrition therapy in the critically ill have been developed by different North American societies. To avoid target audience confusion and uncertainty, there is a need to undergo a review of the content of these guidelines. In this review, the authors compared the grading systems, the levels of evidence used, and the content of North American nutrition clinical guidelines. The 3 clinical guidelines that met their search criteria and hence were included in the comparison are the Canadian Clinical Practice Guidelines, the American Dietetics Association's evidence-based guideline for critical illness, and the Society of Critical Care Medicine and American Society of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition's joint guideline. Through their comparison, the authors have shown that although there are several topics where there is a similar direction of recommendation across the 3 societies/organizations, there are stark contrasts among many of the recommendations. These major differences can be attributed to the admission of different populations, lower levels of evidence or expert opinion into the guideline production process, lack of clarity in the link between the evidence and the recommendation, and lack of uniformity in the reporting of levels of evidence and grades of recommendation. The authors have identified the need for the North American nutrition organizations to harmonize the development of future nutrition guidelines in a timely way, so that they remain current and up-to-date. Furthermore, guideline users need to be aware of the dissimilarities in these guidelines before applying the recommendations to their daily practice.
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 | 0.012 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.033 |
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".