MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Survival period after tube feeding in bedridden older patients

2012· article· en· W1886792572 on OpenAlexaff
Yoichi Kosaka, Takuma Nakagawa‐Satoh, Takashi Ohrui, Masahiko Fujii, Hiroyuki Arai, Hidetada Sasaki

Bibliographic record

VenueGeriatrics and gerontology international/Geriatrics & gerontology international · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicClinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Aging
FundersJapan Foundation for Aging and Health
KeywordsMedicineFeeding tubeDysphagiaPneumoniaTube (container)SurgeryAspiration pneumoniaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: We prospectively studied survival periods after tube feeding. METHODS: Participants were 163 bedridden older patients suffering from dysphagia. RESULTS: A wide range of survival periods after tube feeding were observed within half a year without tube feeding after being bedridden. After this initial period, survival periods after tube feeding were limited to approximately half a year. Survival periods after tube feeding were positively proportional to the length of time patients were free from pneumonia after tube feeding. After tube feeding, patients died from pneumonia within half a year, and the frequency of pneumonia was 3.1 ± 2.7 times (mean ± SD) before death. CONCLUSION: Survival periods after tube feeding for less than 1 year were primarily determined by being bedridden for more than half a year without tube feeding and once pneumonia occurred; patients who were tube fed did not survive for more than half a year.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations20
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeriatrics and gerontology international/Geriatrics & gerontology internationalSame topicClinical Nutrition and GastroenterologyFrench-language works237,207