This guideline was funded by unrestricted grants from the Canadian Institute of Health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To develop evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for nutrition support (i.e. enteral and parenteral nutrition) in mechanically ventilated critically ill adults. Options: The following interventions were systematically reviewed for inclusion in the guidelines: enteral nutrition (EN) vs. parenteral nutrition (PN); early vs. late EN; dose of EN; composition of EN (immune-enhancing additives, carbohydrate, lipids, protein/peptides, pH & fibre); strategies to optimize delivery of EN and minimize risks (i.e. feeding protocols, rate of advancement, checking residuals, use of bedside algorithms, motility agents, small bowel vs. gastric feedings, elevation of head of the bed, closed delivery systems, pre/pro/synbiotics, bolus administration, gastrostomy vs. nasogastric feedings); enteral nutrition in combination with supplemental PN; use of PN vs. standard care in patients with an intact GI tract; dose of PN and composition of PN (protein, carbohydrates, intravenous lipids, additives, vitamins, trace elements, immune enhancing substances) and the use of intensive insulin therapy. Outcomes: The outcomes considered were mortality (ICU, hospital, and long term), length of stay (ICU and hospital), quality of life, and specific complications. Evidence: We systematically searched Medline and Cinahl (cumulative index to nursing
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 | 0.016 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.044 | 0.008 |
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".