Guidelines for the provision of nutrition support therapy in the adult critically ill patient: The American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This guideline updates recommendations from the 2016 American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN)/Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) critical care nutrition guideline for five foundational questions central to critical care nutrition support. METHODS: The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) process was used to develop and summarize evidence for clinical practice recommendations. Clinical outcomes were assessed for (1) higher vs lower energy dose, (2) higher vs lower protein dose, (3) exclusive isocaloric parenteral nutrition (PN) vs enteral nutrition (EN), (4) supplemental PN (SPN) plus EN vs EN alone, (5A) mixed-oil lipid injectable emulsions (ILEs) vs soybean oil, and (5B) fish oil (FO)-containing ILE vs non-FO ILE. To assess safety, weight-based energy intake and protein were plotted against hospital mortality. RESULTS: Between January 1, 2001, and July 15, 2020, 2320 citations were identified and data were abstracted from 36 trials including 20,578 participants. Patients receiving FO had decreased pneumonia rates of uncertain clinical significance. Otherwise, there were no differences for any outcome in any question. Owing to a lack of certainty regarding harm, the energy prescription recommendation was decreased to 12-25 kcal/kg/day. CONCLUSION: No differences in clinical outcomes were identified among numerous nutrition interventions, including higher energy or protein intake, isocaloric PN or EN, SPN, or different ILEs. As more consistent critical care nutrition support data become available, more precise recommendations will be possible. In the meantime, clinical judgment and close monitoring are needed. This paper was approved by the ASPEN Board of Directors.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it