ArticleAsia Pacific journal of clinical nutrition2024
Optimize individualized energy delivery for septic patients using predictive deep learning models.
Article in Asia Pacific journal of clinical nutrition, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- A digital twin for tracking and forecasting glycemia with septic patients in ICUs.npj metabolic health and disease · 2026Article
- Measured resting energy expenditure via indirect calorimetry of critically ill patients: A comparison with predictive equations.Asia Pacific journal of clinical nutrition · 2026Article
- Hypothalamic regulation of sepsis-associated anorexia: cytokine and hormonal signalling through AgRP/POMC circuits.EMBO molecular medicine · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence-guided nutritional therapy in the ICU.Current opinion in clinical nutrition and metabolic care · 2026Review
- Analysis of the predictive value of 3-day cumulative energy deficit for 28-day mortality in patients with sepsis and nutritional risk: a retrospective study.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
- Machine learning glucose forecasting models for septic patients.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesWe aim to establish deep learning models to optimize the individualized energy delivery for septic patients. METHODS AND STUDY
designWe conducted a study of adult septic patients in ICU, collecting 47 indicators for 14 days. We filtered out nutrition-related features and divided the data into datasets according to the three metabolic phases proposed by ESPEN: acute early, acute late, and rehabilitation. We then established optimal energy target models for each phase using deep learning and conducted external validation.
resultsA total of 179 patients in training dataset and 98 patients in external validation dataset were included in this study, and total data size was 3115 elements. The age, weight and BMI of the patients were 63.05 (95%CI 60.42-65.68), 61.31(95%CI 59.62-63.00) and 22.70 (95%CI 22.21-23.19), respectively. And 26.0% (72) of the patients were female. The models indicated that the optimal energy targets in the three phases were 900kcal/d, 2300kcal/d, and 2000kcal/d, respectively. Excessive energy intake increased mortality rapidly in the early period of the acute phase. Insufficient energy in the late period of the acute phase significantly raised the mortality as well. For the rehabilitation phase, too much or too little energy delivery were both associated with elevated death risk.
conclusionsOur study established time-series prediction models for septic patients to optimize energy delivery in the ICU. We recommended permissive underfeeding only in the early acute phase. Later, increased energy intake may improve survival and settle energy debts caused by underfeeding.
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.