Survey of Clinical Nutrition Practices of Canadian Gastroenterologists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Nutrition education is a required part of gastrointestinal training programs. The involvement of gastroenterologists in clinical nutrition once their training has been completed is unknown. The aim of the present study was to determine the practice pattern of gastroenterologists in clinical nutrition and their perceived adequacy of nutrition training during their gastroenterology (GI) fellowship. METHODS: The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology mailed a survey to all of its 463 Canadian clinician members and 88 trainee members. Components of the survey included knowledge of nutritional assessment and total parenteral nutrition, involvement in a nutrition support service, physician involvement in nutritional assessment and nutrition support teams, obesity management, insertion of gastrostomy (G) tubes and management of tube-related complications, and adequacy of training in clinical nutrition. RESULTS: Sixty per cent (n=279) of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology clinicians and 38% (n=33) of the fellows responded. Of the clinicians, 80% were practicing adult gastroenterologists with the following demographics: those practicing full time in academic centres (42%), community practice (45%), completed training in the last 10 years (32%) and those that completed training in the United States (14%). Although only 6% had a primary focus of nutrition in their GI practices, 65% were involved in nutrition support (including total parenteral nutrition), 74% placed G tubes and 68% managed at least one of the major complications of G tube insertion. Respondents felt a gastroenterologist should be the physician's consultant on nutrition support services (89%). Areas of potential inadequate training included nutritional assessment, indications for nutrition support, management of obesity and management of G tube-related complications. The majority of clinicians (67%) and trainees (73%) felt that nutrition training in their GI fellowship was underemphasized. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of Canadian gastroenterologists are involved in nutrition support. However, this survey demonstrated that nutritional training is underemphasized in most training programs. It is important for GI fellowship programs to develop standardized nutrition training that prepares trainees for their practice.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".