MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3086699109 · doi:10.1097/ta.0000000000002937

Application of the modified Nutrition Risk in Critically Ill score to nutritional risk stratification of trauma victims: A multicenter observational study

2020· article· en· W3086699109 on OpenAlexaff
Chinenye Iwuchukwu, Grant E. O’Keefe, Andrew G. Day, Xuran Jiang, Daren K. Heyland

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicClinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineObservational studyConfidence intervalOdds ratioInternal medicineInjury Severity ScoreProspective cohort studyRelative riskCohort studyPhysical therapyEmergency medicinePoison controlInjury prevention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The modified Nutrition Risk in Critically Ill (mNUTRIC) score was developed to identify patients most likely to benefit from nutritional therapies and to stratify or select study subjects for clinical trials. The score is not validated in trauma victims in whom adequate nutritional support is important and difficult to achieve. We sought to determine whether a higher mNUTRIC score was associated with worse outcomes and whether caloric and protein intake improved outcome more in patients classified as high risk relative to those classified as low risk. METHODS: We analyzed a prospectively collected database of patients from intensive care units globally. The primary outcome was 60-day hospital mortality, and the secondary outcome was time to discharge alive. We compared outcomes between high and low mNUTRIC score groups and also tested whether the association between outcome and nutrition intake was modified by the mNUTRIC score. RESULTS: A total of 771 trauma patients were included. Most (585; 76%) had a low-risk mNUTRIC (0-4) score, and 186 (24%) had a high-risk (5-9) mNUTRIC score. The overall 60-day mortality was 13%. Patients in the high mNUTRIC group had a higher risk of death than those in the low mNUTRIC group (adjusted odds ratio, 2.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.7-4.2). Overall, there was no relationship between caloric or protein intake and clinical outcomes. However, patients in the high mNUTRIC group fared better with increasing caloric and protein intake, whereas subjects in the low mNUTRIC score group did not (p values for interaction with the mNUTRIC score for time to discharge alive was p = 0.014 for calories and was p = 0.004 for protein). CONCLUSION: A high mNUTRIC score identifies trauma patients at higher risk for poor outcomes and those who may benefit from higher caloric and protein intake. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiological/Prognostic, level III.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.295 · 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

Citations13
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical CareSame topicClinical Nutrition and GastroenterologyFrench-language works237,207