Energy Intake and Expenditure in Children With Heart Failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Up to one third of children with heart failure exhibit growth failure. Limited data exists reporting energy requirements in this population. A study was designed to characterize the energy intake and total daily energy expenditure of children with heart failure using the doubly labeled water method. DESIGN: Prospective study using doubly labeled water to measure total daily energy expenditure in children with heart failure. Doubly labeled water was administered orally and daily urine samples collected for 10 days. Total daily energy expenditure was compared with historic data from age- and gender-matched healthy population. Anthropometrics and 3-day calorie count were also done. SETTING: The Cardiovascular Intensive Care Unit and Cardiology ward at Texas Children's Hospital. PATIENTS: Children with new presentation of heart failure as defined by an ejection fraction less than 35% and requiring inotrope(s) at the time of enrollment. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of five children with heart failure were enrolled from 2015 to 2016. All children showed weight-for-length less than mean-for-age. All had depressed myocardial function at enrollment, and all but one demonstrated improvement in ejection fraction at follow-up. Three had energy intake that met or surpassed their total daily energy expenditure, with total daily energy expenditure that measured below historic controls. One infant, despite supplementation, had an energy intake substantially below that of measured total daily energy expenditure and required cardiac transplantation. CONCLUSIONS: Growth failure in heart failure is likely multifactorial and may be related to suboptimal energy intake secondary to exercise intolerance, malabsorption, and/or end-organ dysfunction due to impaired cardiac output. Doubly labeled water is a feasible method to assess total daily energy expenditure in children with heart failure.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".