Randomized clinical trial of glutamine-supplemented<i>versus</i>standard parenteral nutrition in infants with surgical gastrointestinal disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Addition of glutamine to parenteral nutrition in surgical infants remains controversial. The aim of this trial was to determine whether glutamine supplementation of parenteral nutrition in infants requiring surgery would reduce the time to full enteral feeding and/or decrease the incidence of sepsis and septicaemia. METHODS: A prospective double-blind multicentre randomized clinical trial was performed in surgical infants less than 3 months old who required parenteral nutrition. Patients were allocated to treatment or control groups by means of minimization. Infants received either 0·6 g per kg per day alanyl-glutamine (treatment group) or isonitrogenous isocaloric parenteral nutrition (control group) until full enteral feeding was achieved. Primary outcomes were time to full enteral feeding and incidence of sepsis. Cox regression analysis was used to compare time to full enteral feeding, and to calculate risk of sepsis/septicaemia. RESULTS: A total of 174 patients were randomized, of whom 164 completed the trial and were analysed (82 in each group). There was no difference in time to full enteral feeding or time to first enteral feeding between groups, and supplementation with glutamine had no effect on the overall incidence of sepsis or septicaemia. However, during total parenteral nutrition (before the first enteral feed), glutamine administration was associated with a significantly decreased risk of developing sepsis (hazard ratio 0·33, 95 per cent confidence interval 0·15 to 0·72; P = 0·005). CONCLUSION: Glutamine supplementation during parenteral nutrition did not reduce the incidence of sepsis in surgical infants with gastrointestinal disease. REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN83168963 (http://www.controlled-trials.com).
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".