MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3111213053 · doi:10.1097/mco.0000000000000721

Using technology to assess nutritional status and optimize nutrition therapy in critically ill patients

2020· review· en· W3111213053 on OpenAlexaff
Victor Dong, Constantine Karvellas

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Clinical Nutrition & Metabolic Care · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBioelectrical impedance analysisMedicineMedical nutrition therapyMalnutritionSarcopeniaIntensive care medicineCritically illIntensive care unitClinical nutritionResting energy expenditureEnergy expenditureBody mass indexInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Malnutrition is prevalent in critically ill patients and is linked to worse outcomes such as prolonged mechanical ventilation, length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay, and increased mortality. Therefore, nutritional therapy is important. However, it is often difficult to accurately identify those at high malnutrition risk and to optimize nutritional support. Different technological modalities have therefore been developed to identify patients at high nutritional risk and to guide nutritional support in an attempt to optimize outcomes. RECENT FINDINGS: Computed tomography (CT), ultrasound (US), and bioelectrical impedance analysis are tools that allow assessment of lean body mass and detection of sarcopenia, which is a significant marker of poor nutrition. The use of indirect calorimetry allows the determination of resting energy expenditure to serve as a guide to providing optimal nutrition intake in ICU patients. SUMMARY: By using CT, US, or bioelectrical impedance analysis, detection of sarcopenia can be undertaken in patients admitted to the ICU. This allows for an accurate picture of underlying nutritional status to help clinicians focus on nutritional support for these patients. Subsequently, indirect calorimetry can be used to guide optimal nutrition therapy and caloric intake in critically ill patients. However, whether these methods result in improved outcomes in critically ill patients remains to be validated.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.359
GPT teacher head0.573
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations14
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in Clinical Nutrition & Metabolic CareSame topicNutrition and Health in AgingFrench-language works237,207