A RandomizEd trial of ENtERal Glutamine to minimIZE thermal injury (The RE-ENERGIZE Trial): a clinical trial protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Burn injury represents a significant public health problem worldwide. More than in any other injury, the inflammation and catabolism associated with severe burns can exacerbate nutrient deficiencies resulting in impaired immune function and increased risk of developing infection, organ dysfunction and death. Consequently, over the last few decades numerous trials have evaluated the impact of different nutritional strategies in severe burn injury. Glutamine is of particular interest, as it appears vital for a number of key stress-response pathways in serious illness. The purpose of the current manuscript is to provide the rationale and protocol for a large clinical trial of supplemental enteral glutamine in 2700 severe burn-injured patients. METHODS: We propose a multicentre, double-blind, pragmatic, randomized, clinical trial involving 80 tertiary intensive care unit (ICU) burn centres worldwide. We aim to enrol patients with deep second- and/or third-degree burns at moderate or high risk for death. We will exclude patients admitted > 72 h before screening and patients with advanced liver and kidney disease. The study intervention consists of enteral glutamine 0.5 g/kg/day vs. isocaloric maltodextran control delivered enterally. Primary outcome will be six-month mortality. Key secondary outcomes include time to discharge alive from hospital, ICU and hospital mortality, length of stay and health-related quality of life at six months. SIGNIFICANCE: This study will be the first large international multicentre trial examining the effects of glutamine in burn patients. Negative or positive, the results of this trial will inform the clinical practice of burns care worldwide.Clinicaltrials.gov ID #NCT00985205.
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 | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.033 | 0.004 |
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".