Are Predictive Energy Expenditure Equations Accurate in Cirrhosis?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Malnutrition is associated with significant morbidity and mortality in cirrhosis. An accurate nutrition prescription is an essential component of care, often estimated using time-efficient predictive equations. Our aim was to compare resting energy expenditure (REE) estimated using predictive equations (predicted REE, pREE) versus REE measured using gold-standard, indirect calorimetry (IC) (measured REE, mREE). We included full-text English language studies in adults with cirrhosis comparing pREE versus mREE. The mean differences across studies were pooled with RevMan 5.3 software. A total of 17 studies (1883 patients) were analyzed. The pooled cohort was comprised of 65% men with a mean age of 53 ± 7 years. Only 45% of predictive equations estimated energy requirements to within 90–110% of mREE using IC. Eighty-three percent of predictive equations underestimated and 28% overestimated energy needs by ±10%. When pooled, the mean difference between the mREE and pREE was lowest for the Harris–Benedict equation, with an underestimation of 54 (95% CI: 30–137) kcal/d. The pooled analysis was associated with significant heterogeneity (I2 = 94%). In conclusion, predictive equations calculating REE have limited accuracy in patients with cirrhosis, most commonly underestimating energy requirements and are associated with wide variations in individual comparative data.
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 | 0.021 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".