MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2750575034 · doi:10.1177/0884533617722165

Critical Care Nutrition Support Best Practices: Key Differences Between Canadian and American Guidelines

2017· review· en· W2750575034 on OpenAlex
Jayshil J. Patel, Margot Lemieux, Stephen A. McClave, Robert G. Martindale, Ryan T. Hurt, Daren K. Heyland

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueNutrition in Clinical Practice · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicClinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityClinical Evaluation Research UnitKingston General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGuidelineConfusionParenteral nutritionMEDLINENursingFamily medicineIntensive care medicinePathologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since 2015, Society of Critical Care Medicine/American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition and Canadian critical care nutrition support guidelines have both been updated. Despite a similar evidentiary basis, there remain key differences between guideline recommendations. These differences in recommendations may pose confusion for the clinician and may encumber widespread applicability. The aim of this review was to enhance practitioner confidence in applying critical care nutrition support guidelines to patient care in their settings by outlining the similarities and differences between the American and Canadian methods for guideline development and describing the key differences and reasons behind the differences.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.156
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.944
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.156
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.510
GPT teacher head0.598
Teacher spread0.088 · 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