Microbial, nutritional and physical quality of commercial and hospital prepared tube feedings in Saudi Arabia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Blenderized tube feedings (BTF) may present disadvantages over commercially prepared formulas (CPF). This study compares the microbial safety, nutritional content, and physical properties of BTF versus CPF. METHODS: A total of 18 samples of BTF were collected from 3 hospitals in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia from August 1999 through to November 1999. Samples of a CPF were collected for comparison. All samples were analyzed for nutritional content, microbial quality (aerobic plate counts, coliform counts, microorganism growth) and physical characteristics (viscosity, osmolality). RESULTS: The nutrient content of BTF varied significantly within and between sites. The average intra site variability for all sites ranged from 16-50%. The average variability of the CPF was 4-7%. Between sites, the mean concentration of most nutrients varied by 2-3 fold. The BTF had considerable differences between actual and expected nutrient concentrations, reaching statistical significance in 12 nutrients. The measured concentration of most nutrients in the CPF was within 10% of expected values. The BTF samples had higher viscosity and osmolality than the CPF. All samples of BTF had detectable aerobic plate counts that increased significantly over 4 hours (p<0.0005). Coliform contamination varied between sites, with 100% contamination at one site. No aerobic plate counts or coliform counts were detected in the CPF samples. CONCLUSION: There is a high degree of variability in nutrient content and physical properties with BTF. Furthermore, BTF are highly contaminated, increasing the risk of nosocomial infections. For these reasons, CPF should replace BTF.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".