Targeted full energy and protein delivery in critically ill patients: a study protocol for a pilot randomised control trial (FEED Trial)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current guidelines for the provision of protein for critically ill patients are based on incomplete evidence, due to limited data from randomised controlled trials. The present pilot randomised controlled trial is part of a program of work to expand knowledge about the clinical effects of protein delivery to critically ill patients. The primary aim of this pilot study is to determine whether an enteral feeding protocol using a volume target, with additional protein supplementation, delivers a greater amount of protein and energy to mechanically ventilated critically ill patients than a standard nutrition protocol. The secondary aims are to evaluate the potential effects of this feeding strategy on muscle mass and other patient-centred outcomes. METHODS: This prospective, single-centred, pilot, randomised control trial will include 60 participants who are mechanically ventilated and can be enterally fed. Following informed consent, the participants receiving enteral nutrition in the intensive care unit (ICU) will be allocated using a randomisation algorithm in a 1:1 ratio to the intervention (high-protein daily volume-based feeding protocol, providing 25 kcal/kg and 1.5 g/kg protein) or standard care (hourly rate-based feeding protocol providing 25 kcal/kg and 1 g/kg protein). The co-primary outcomes are the average daily protein and energy delivered to the end of day 15 following randomisation. The secondary outcomes include change in quadriceps muscle layer thickness (QMLT) from baseline (prior to randomisation) to ICU discharge and other nutritional and patient-centred outcomes. DISCUSSION: This trial aims to examine whether a volume-based feeding protocol with supplemental protein increases protein and energy delivery. The potential effect of such increases on muscle mass loss will be explored. These outcomes will assist in formulating larger randomised control trials to assess mortality and morbidity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR), ACTRN: 12615000876594 UTN: U1111-1172-8563.
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 | 0.053 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.041 | 0.008 |
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".