Comparison of Indirect Calorimetry versus Standard Weight-Based Formula in Ischemic Stroke Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Studies performed to calculate metabolic rate in stroke patients have conflicting results. The indirect calorimetry is the gold standard in measuring resting energy expenditure. We compared the intensive care unit (ICU) mortality and outcome in stroke patients receiving enteral nutrition based on energy requirement calculated by either indirect calorimetry or standard weight-based formula. Methods Twenty ischemic stroke patients of older than 40 years requiring greater than 2 days of mechanical ventilation were prospectively enrolled. Demographic data, Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), Canadian Neurological Scale, and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score were obtained. Patients were randomized to receive enteral nutrition based on energy requirement calculated either by indirect calorimeter (group REEIC) or by standard weight-based measurements (group REEST). Daily ventilatory parameters, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, and blood parameters were noted. The ICU mortality/duration of stay/complication and duration of hospital stay were compared. Patient outcome at discharge was assessed using modified Rankin scale (MRS). Results Baseline characteristics were comparable. There were no ICU deaths in group REEIC. Patients in group REEIC had significantly (p < 0.01) more resting energy requirement and less maximum negative energy balance than those in group REEST. The SOFA score at days 5, 7, and 9 and the total leukocyte count (TLC) at day 5 were higher in group REEST. The duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU stay/complications, duration of hospital stay, and MRS at discharge were comparable. Conclusion Ischemic stroke patients receiving indirect calorimetry–guided enteral nutrition had lesser incidence of organ failure but similar ICU stay and mortality and neurological outcome as compared with those receiving standard weight-based enteral nutrition.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".