MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2394600582 · doi:10.1177/0148607116651063

Evaluation of Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis in Critically Ill Patients: Results of a Multicenter Prospective Study

2016· article· en· W2394600582 on OpenAlexaff
Adam J. Kuchnia, Carrie P. Earthman, Levi Teigen, Abigail Cole, Marina Mourtzakis, Michael T. Paris, Peter J.M. Weijs, Heleen Oudemans‐van Straaten, Gregory J. Beilman, Andrew G. Day, Roger Leung, Charlene Compher, Rupinder Dhaliwal, Sarah J. Peterson, Hannah Roosevelt, Daren K. Heyland

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBody Composition Measurement Techniques
Canadian institutionsKingston General HospitalClinical Evaluation Research UnitQueen's UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNational Institute of Food and AgricultureU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsBioelectrical impedance analysisMedicineBody mass indexLogistic regressionReceiver operating characteristicArea under the curveSarcopeniaInternal medicinePhase angle (astronomy)Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometryIntensive careProspective cohort studyNuclear medicineCardiologyIntensive care medicineOsteoporosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: In critically ill patients, muscle loss is associated with adverse outcomes. Raw bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) parameters (eg, phase angle [PA] and impedance ratio [IR]) have received attention as potential markers of muscularity, nutrition status, and clinical outcomes. Our objective was to test whether PA and IR could be used to assess low muscularity and predict clinical outcomes. Methods: Patients (≥18 years) having an abdominal computed tomography (CT) scan and admitted to intensive care underwent multifrequency BIA within 72 hours of scan. CT scans were landmarked at the third lumbar vertebra and analyzed for skeletal muscle cross‐sectional area (CSA). CSA ≤170 cm 2 for males and ≤110 cm 2 for females defined low muscularity. The relationship between PA (and IR) and CT muscle CSA was evaluated using multivariate regression and included adjustments for age, sex, body mass index, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and admission type. PA and IR were also evaluated for predicting discharge status using dual‐energy x‐ray absorptiometry–derived cut‐points for low fat‐free mass index. Results: Of 171 potentially eligible patients, 71 had BIA and CT scans within 72 hours. Area under the receiver operating characteristic (c‐index) curve to predict CT‐defined low muscularity was 0.67 ( P ≤ .05) for both PA and IR. With covariates added to logistic regression models, PA and IR c‐indexes were 0.78 and 0.76 ( P < .05), respectively. Low PA and high IR predicted time to live ICU discharge. Conclusion: Our study highlights the potential utility of PA and IR as markers to identify patients with low muscularity who may benefit from early and rigorous intervention.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.307 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations88
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Parenteral and Enteral NutritionSame topicBody Composition Measurement TechniquesFrench-language works237,207