{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027888446215139442, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008964143426294821, 'mean_word_length': 4.742857142857143, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 2, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[Measured versus estimated energy expenditure at rest in critically ill patients].

UNLABELLED
Differences between the indirect calorimetry (Ic) and Harris-Benedict method (HBM) to assess the caloric demand in critically ill patients were determined using a manual procedure to measure Ic. Forty patients were evaluated by both methods. Activity and lesion factors were included for HBM regarding each case. Ic was based on gas analysis (O2 and CO2) of an expired/inspired sample by means of Weir equation and Lusk tables. The comparison between Ic and HBM alone did not show differences. Results showed statistically significant differences when Ic and HBM plus activity and lesion factors were compared. Ic showed higher confidence and precision in critically ill patients (p < 0.05 and p < 0.001. Student's t test).


CONCLUSIONS
The HBM failed to show an appropriate correlation in these patients as other published data. The procedure manual in Ic has value and can be use in second level hospitals.