Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parenteral nutrition (PN) is a technique of artificial nutrition support, which consists of the intravenous administration of macronutrients, micronutrients, and water. PN has become integrated into intensive care unit (ICU) patient management with the aim of preventing energy deficits and preserving lean body mass. The addition of PN to enteral nutrition is known as supplemental PN. Parenteral feeding should be considered whenever enteral nutritional support is contraindicated, or when enteral nutrition alone is unable to meet energy and nutrient requirements. International guidelines differ considerably regarding the indications for PN. Thus, the ESPEN guidelines recommend initiating PN in critically-ill patients who do not meet caloric goals within 2–3 days of commencing EN, while the Canadian guidelines recommend PN only after extensive attempts to feed with EN have failed. The ASPEN guidelines advocate administering PN after 8 days of attempting EN unsuccessfully. Several studies have demonstrated that parenteral glutamine supplementation may improve outcome, and the ESPEN guidelines give a grade A recommendation to the use of glutamine in critically-ill patients who receive PN. Studies on IV omega-3 fatty acids have yielded promising results in animal models of acute respiratory distress syndrome and proved superior to solutions with omega -6 compositions. The discrepancy between animal models and clinical practice could be related to different time frames.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 0.027 |
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".