Total energy expenditure measured using doubly labeled water in adults with major chronic diseases: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Energy requirement assessment is a cornerstone for nutrition practice. The extent to which total energy expenditure (TEE; indicator of energy requirements) has been measured in adults with chronic diseases has not been explored. OBJECTIVES: This systematic review aimed to characterize evidence on TEE among individuals with chronic diseases and describe TEE across chronic diseases and in comparison to controls without a chronic disease. METHODS: A literature search using terms related to doubly labeled water and TEE was conducted in PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Embase. Eligible articles included those that measured TEE using doubly labeled water in adults with a major chronic disease. Methodological quality was determined using the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics quality criteria checklist. Sample size-weighted TEE was calculated in each chronic disease subgroup. RESULTS: Fifty studies were included, of which 15 had a control group. Median sample size was 20 participants, and approximately half of studies were published over 10 y ago. Thirty-five (70%) studies reported resting energy expenditure, and approximately half (k = 26) reported physical activity level. Methodological quality was neutral (k = 25) or positive (k = 23) for most studies. TEE among individual studies ranged from 934 to 3274 kcal/d. Mean weighted TEE was lowest among gastrointestinal (1786 kcal/d) and neurologic (2104 kcal/d) subgroups and highest among cancer (2903 kcal/d), endocrine (2661 kcal/d), and autoimmune (2625 kcal/d) subgroups. Excluding 1 article in cancer survivors resulted in a low TEE in the cancer subgroup (2112 kcal/d). Most studies with a control group reported no differences in TEE between controls and patients; however, only 1 study was powered for between-group comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: Energy requirements vary across chronic diseases, although there is insufficient evidence to suggest that TEE in patients with chronic disease is different than that among controls. Further research is needed to inform energy requirement recommendations that consider chronic disease. This review was registered at PROSPERO as CRD42022336500 (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=336500).
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 | 0.008 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".