Relevance of Protein Intake for Weaning in the Mechanically Ventilated Critically Ill: Analysis of a Large International Database
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The association between protein intake and the need for mechanical ventilation (MV) is controversial. We aimed to investigate the associations between protein intake and outcomes in ventilated critically ill patients. DESIGN: Analysis of a subset of a large international point prevalence survey of nutritional practice in ICUs. SETTING: A total of 785 international ICUs. PATIENTS: A total of 12,930 patients had been in the ICU for at least 96 hours and required MV by the fourth day after ICU admission at the latest. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We modeled associations between the adjusted hazard rate (aHR) of death in patients requiring MV and successful weaning (competing risks), and three categories of protein intake (low: < 0.8 g/kg/d, standard: 0.8-1.2 g/kg/d, high: > 1.2 g/kg/d). We compared five different hypothetical protein diets (an exclusively low protein intake, a standard protein intake given early (days 1-4) or late (days 5-11) after ICU admission, and an early or late high protein intake). There was no evidence that the level of protein intake was associated with time to weaning. However, compared with an exclusively low protein intake, a standard protein intake was associated with a lower hazard of death in MV: minimum aHR 0.60 (95% CI, 0.45-0.80). With an early high intake, there was a trend to a higher risk of death in patients requiring MV: maximum aHR 1.35 (95% CI, 0.99-1.85) compared with a standard diet. CONCLUSIONS: The duration of MV does not appear to depend on protein intake, whereas mortality in patients requiring MV may be improved by a standard protein intake. Adverse effects of a high protein intake cannot be excluded.
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 | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".