MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1530142132 · doi:10.1159/000365610

Use of Intravenous Lipids: What Do the Guidelines Say?

2014· review· en· W1530142132 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Pierre Singer, Miriam Theilla, Jonathan Cohen

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld review of nutrition and dietetics · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicClinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParenteral nutritionMedical prescriptionMedicineIntensive care medicineEnteral administrationPharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of intravenous lipids is very frequent in most parenteral nutrition (PN) prescriptions. In this chapter, a systematic review of the literature was performed to compare the position of the various scientific societies (mainly the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism, the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, and the German and Canadian Nutrition Societies) in terms of recommendations of when intravenous lipids should be prescribed for different clinical conditions. These recommendations may be supported by strong evidence or, if not available, by expert opinion. These recommendations help the physician in his daily prescription of PN in the hospital and help the patient requiring home PN.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.636
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.126
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.277 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld review of nutrition and dieteticsSame topicClinical Nutrition and GastroenterologyFrench-language works237,207