MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2900629446 · doi:10.3148/cjdpr-2018-033

Nutrition Care of Critically Ill Patients with Leukemia: A Retrospective Study

2018· article· en· W2900629446 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Kristen MacEachern, Alan Kraguljac, Sangeeta Mehta

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Dietetic Practice and Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicClinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCritically illMedicineIntensive care medicineRetrospective cohort studyLeukemiaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adults with acute leukemia (AL) are at high risk of malnutrition due to their disease and treatment side effects and may be admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU), further increasing the risk of malnutrition. Although ICU care includes some form of nutrition, patients typically receive less than prescribed energy and protein. Our objective was to characterize the nutrition care for critically ill patients with AL. We completed a retrospective review of adults with AL admitted to the Medical/Surgical ICU >24 hours. Descriptive statistics were performed on collected data including: demographics, APACHE II and Nutric scores, nutrition therapy, reasons for withholding nutrition, and mortality status at discharge. Data were collected on 154 AL patients with an average APACHE II score of 27 and Nutric score of 5.96. ICU mortality was 36%. Enteral nutrition (EN) was most commonly prescribed. Patients on EN received 55% of energy and 51% of protein prescribed. EN was commonly withheld for airway management and gastrointestinal impairment. Patients with AL received low amounts of energy and protein in the ICU and had a high Nutric score. Strategies and barriers to improve protein intake in this population are identified.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.347 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Dietetic Practice and ResearchSame topicClinical Nutrition and GastroenterologyFrench-language works237,207