Targeted Full Energy and Protein Delivery in Critically Ill Patients: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial (FEED Trial)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: International guidelines recommend greater protein delivery to critically ill patients than they currently receive. This pilot randomized clinical trial aimed to determine whether a volume-target enteral protocol with supplemental protein delivered greater amounts of protein and energy to critically ill patients compared with standard care. METHODS: Sixty participants received either the intervention (volume-based protocol, with protein supplementation) or standard nutrition care (hourly-rate-based protocol, without protein supplementation) in the intensive care unit (ICU). Coprimary outcomes were average daily protein and energy delivery. Secondary outcomes included change in quadriceps muscle layer thickness (QMLT, ultrasound) and malnutrition (subjective global assessment) at ICU discharge. RESULTS: Mean (SD) protein and energy delivery per day from nutrition therapy for the intervention were 1.2 (0.30) g/kg and 21 (5.2) kcal/kg compared with 0.75 (0.11) g/kg and 18 (2.7) kcal/kg for standard care. The mean difference between groups in protein and energy delivery per day was 0.45 g/kg (95% CI, 0.33-0.56; P < .001) and 2.8 kcal/kg (95% CI, 0.67-4.9, P = .01). Muscle loss (QMLT) at discharge was attenuated by 0.22 cm (95% CI, 0.06-0.38, P = .01) in patients receiving the intervention compared with standard care. The number of malnourished patients was fewer in the intervention [2 (7%) vs 8 (28%); P = .04]. Mortality and duration of admission were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: A high-protein volume-based protocol with protein supplementation delivered greater amounts of protein and energy. This intervention was associated with attenuation of QMLT loss and reduced prevalence of malnutrition at ICU discharge.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".