MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2955764055 · doi:10.1002/ncp.10362

Glutamine in Burn Injury

2019· review· en· W2955764055 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueNutrition in Clinical Practice · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicClinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineBurn injurySevere burnIntensive care medicineClinical trialGlutamineBacteremiaInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Burn injury is the most devastating of survivable injuries and is a worldwide public health crisis. Burn injury is among the most severe metabolic stresses a patient can sustain. A major burn leads to an inflammatory response and catabolism that, when compounded by burn wound nutrient losses, can lead to severe nutrition losses and deficiencies. These losses can impair immune function and wound healing and place burn patients at high risk for organ injury and mortality. Experimental data indicate glutamine (GLN) is well positioned mechanistically, perhaps above and beyond in any other intensive care unit setting, to improve outcome in burn-injured patients. Initial clinical trial data have also shown a consistent signal of reduced mortality and reduced hospital length of stay in burn-injured subjects, without signals of clinical risk. A number of GLN clinical trials demonstrate significant reductions of gram-negative bacteremia in burn injury, perhaps via maintenance of the gut barrier or gut immune function. Current societal recommendations continue to suggest the use of GLN in burn injury. The promising clinical data in burn-injured patients, with no signals of harm, have warranted study of GLN in the definitive RE-ENERGIZE trial, which is now ongoing.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.929
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.183
GPT teacher head0.528
Teacher spread0.344 · 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