Free Fatty Acids’ Level and Nutrition in Critically Ill Patients and Association with Outcomes: A Prospective Sub-Study of PermiT Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: The objectives of this study were to evaluate the clinical and nutritional correlates of high free fatty acids (FFAs) level in critically ill patients and the association with outcomes, and to study the effect of short-term caloric restriction (permissive underfeeding) on FFAs level during critical illness. Patients/Method: In this pre-planned sub-study of the PermiT (Permissive Underfeeding vs. Target Enteral Feeding in Adult Critically Ill Patients) trial, we included critically ill patients who were expected to stay for ≥14 days in the intensive care unit. We measured FFAs level on day 1, 3, 5, 7, and 14 of enrollment. Of 70 enrolled patients, 23 (32.8%) patients had high FFAs level (baseline FFAs level >0.45 mmol/L in females and >0.6 mmol/L in males). Results: Patients with high FFAs level were significantly older and more likely to be females and diabetics and they had lower ratio of partial pressure of oxygen to the fraction of inspired oxygen, higher creatinine, and higher total cholesterol levels than those with normal FFAs level. During the study period, patients with high FFAs level had higher blood glucose and required more insulin. On multivariable logistic regression analysis, the predictors of high baseline FFAs level were diabetes (adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 5.36; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.56, 18.43, p = 0.008) and baseline cholesterol level (aOR, 4.29; 95% CI: 11.64, 11.19, p = 0.003). Serial levels of FFAs did not differ with time between permissive underfeeding and standard feeding groups. FFAs level was not associated with 90-day mortality (aOR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.09, 2.60, p = 0.40). Conclusion: We conclude that high FFAs level in critically ill patients is associated with features of metabolic syndrome and is not affected by short-term permissive underfeeding.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".