The utilization of parenteral nutrition during the in‐patient management of inflammatory bowel disease in the United States: a national survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Parenteral nutrition has a limited role in the in-patient management of inflammatory bowel disease. AIM: To determine nationwide patterns of in-patient parenteral nutrition utilization and its demographic determinants and impact on outcomes. METHODS: We identified inflammatory bowel disease discharges in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample between 1998 and 2003 and determined rates of parenteral nutrition utilization among US census regions, in-hospital mortality and hospital resource utilization. RESULTS: The parenteral nutrition utilization rate among hospitalized inflammatory bowel disease patients was 6%. Only 64% of Crohn's disease and 55% of ulcerative colitis discharges who received parenteral nutrition had malnutrition, fistulizing or obstructive Crohn's disease, or surgery as an indication. The adjusted odds ratio of receiving parenteral nutrition were 0.36 (95% CI: 0.26-0.51) for the mid-west, 0.47 (0.37-0.56) for the south and 0.70 (0.56-0.89) for the west, compared to the north-east. Use of parenteral nutrition was associated with higher in-hospital mortality (OR 2.5; 95% CI: 1.93-3.24), length of stay (13.7 vs. 5.7 days, P < 0.001) and hospital charges ($51,729 vs. $19,563, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In-patient utilization of parenteral nutrition for inflammatory bowel disease varies markedly by census region, expends significant resources, and leads to potentially significant adverse outcomes. These findings underscore the need for guidelines for judicious parenteral nutrition use in inflammatory bowel disease.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".