Protein Delivery in the Intensive Care Unit: Optimal or Suboptimal?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emerging evidence suggests that exogenous protein/amino acid supplementation has the potential to improve the recovery of critically ill patients. After a careful review of the published evidence, experts have concluded that critically ill patients should receive up to 2.0-2.5 g/kg/d of protein. Despite this, however, recent review of current International Nutrition Survey data suggests that protein in critically ill patients is underprescribed and grossly underdelivered. Furthermore, the survey suggests that most of protein administration comes from enteral nutrition (EN) despite the availability of products and protocols that enhance the delivery of protein/amino acids in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting. While future research clarifies the dose, timing, and composition for exogenous protein administration, as well as identification of patients who will benefit the most, ongoing process improvement initiatives should target a concerted effort to increase protein intake in the critically ill. This assertion follows from the notion that current patients are possibly being harmed while we wait for confirmatory evidence. Further research should also develop better tools to enable bedside practitioners to monitor optimal or adequate protein intake for individual patients. Finally, exploring the effect of combining adequate protein delivery with early mobility and/or resistance exercise in the ICU setting has the greatest potential for improving the functional outcomes of survivors of critical illness and warrants further study.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it