Parenteral nutrition in foals: a retrospective study of 45 cases (2000–2004)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
REASONS FOR PERFORMING STUDY: Adequate nutritional support of sick foals in critical care is an important aspect of treatment. When enteral feeding is contraindicated, parenteral nutrition (PN) provides a source of energy and protein. However, no study has critically assessed the use of PN in a large group of foals. OBJECTIVE: The administration of PN to clinically ill foals was examined retrospectively to determine the effects of PN formulation and variables on the incidence of PN-associated complications and outcome. HYPOTHESES: There was no effect of PN formula on 1) the occurrence or type of complications; 2) of PN formula on outcome; 3) of disease severity on the occurrence or type of complications; and 4) of disease severity on outcome. METHODS: Medical records of 45 foals, presented to the Marion duPont Scott Equine Medical Center, which received PN, were reviewed for the years 2000-2004. RESULTS: The indications for PN were recumbency, depression or gastrointestinal conditions. Formulation of PN was not associated with the development of complications, and there was no association of PN formula with patient survival. Disease severity was positively associated with the development of PN complications and the occurrence of PN complications was associated with an increased risk of nonsurvival. CONCLUSION AND POTENTIAL RELEVANCE: The use of lipid-containing PN solutions facilitates the delivery of energy to the critically-ill foal without increasing the risk of deleterious side effects. Severely ill foals are more prone to develop complications associated with PN and to have a poor outcome.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".