Anthropometric growth and utilization of enteral feeding support in pediatric heart transplant recipients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bannister L, Manlhiot C, Pollock‐BarZiv S, Stone T, McCrindle BW, Dipchand AI. Anthropometric growth and utilization of enteral feeding support in pediatric heart transplant recipients. Pediatr Transplantation 2010: 14:879–886. © 2010 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Abstract: We sought to outline trends in anthropometric growth before and after cardiac transplantation and to document our experience with the use of EFS in this population. A total of 130 patients (59% male) were enrolled and followed for a median of 4.4 yr after transplantation. Negative changes over time in weight z‐score (EST: −0.256 [0.160] z/yr, p = 0.01), height z‐score (EST: −0.214 [0.096] z/yr, p = 0.03), and BMI z‐score (EST: −0.287 [0.161] z/yr, p = 0.07) were observed prior to transplantation. Significant increases in weight z‐score (EST: +0.342 [0.143] z/yr, p < 0.001) and BMI z‐score (EST: +0.396 [0.140] z/yr, p = 0.005) were seen in the first 18 months following transplantation. No further increases in height, weight, or BMI z‐score were seen beyond this. Forty‐two (32%) patients received EFS. Prior to transplantation, it was not found to be associated with change in anthropomorphic growth. Post‐transplantation exposure to EFS was associated with a faster increase in weight z‐score (EST: +0.480 [0.231] z/yr, p = 0.04) and height z‐score over time (EST: +0.366 [0.141] z/yr, p = 0.01). Normalization of weight and height z‐scores was not achieved during the study follow‐up period. This study suggests that further investigation into the role of EFS is warranted to identify strategies to improve growth in pediatric heart transplant recipients.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".