ArticleBioMed research international2022
Integrated Learning Model-Based Assessment of Enteral Nutrition Support in Neurosurgical Intensive Care Patients.
Article in BioMed research international, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Enteral nutrition support in patients with cancer: association of short-term prognosis and medical costs with inflammation.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024Trial
- An interpretable AutoML-based prediction model for enteral nutrition intolerance in severe pulmonary tuberculosis patients and development of a clinical decision system.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
- Retracted: Integrated Learning Model-Based Assessment of Enteral Nutrition Support in Neurosurgical Intensive Care Patients.BioMed research international · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2023-08-02Concerns/Issues about Data · Concerns/Issues about Human Subject Welfare · Concerns/Issues about Referencing/Attributions · Concerns/Issues about Peer Review · Investigation by Journal/Publisher · Investigation by Third Party · Lack of IRB/IACUC Approval and/or Compliance · Unreliable Results and/or Conclusions · · See also: https://pubpeer.com/publications/474A574603CC033DC5F0FE3A904648
- Retracted
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To observe the clinical efficacy of early enteral nutrition application in critically ill neurosurgical patients, in this paper, we have developed a prediction model for enteral nutrition support in neurosurgical intensive care patients which is primarily based on an integrated learning algorithm. Additionally, we have compared the prediction performance of each model. The patients were divided into control and combined treatment groups according to the random number table method, and 175 patients in each group were treated with a parenteral method and early enteral nutrition support, respectively. A reentry ICU prediction model based on the integrated learning method random forest, adaptive boosting (AdaBoost), and gradient boosting decision tree (GBDT) was developed, and the prediction performance of integrated learning and logistic regression was compared. The average sensitivity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, false-positive rate, false-negative rate, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), and Brier score after fivefold cross-validation were used to evaluate model effects, and the best performance model based on the top 10 predictor variables in order of importance was given. Among all models, GBDT (AUROC = 0.858) was better than random forest (AUROC = 0.827) and slightly better than AdaBoost (AUROC = 0.851). The GBDT algorithm gave a higher ranking of importance for variables such as mean arterial pressure, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, heart rate, urine volume, and blood creatinine and relatively poorer cardiovascular and renal function in neurosurgical intensive care patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.