A comparison of the effect of elemental and immune‐enhancing polymeric jejunal feeding on exocrine pancreatic function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are few studies examining the effect of jejunal feeding on pancreatic exocrine output. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of jejunal feeding with an elemental formula (EF) and with a polymeric immune-enhancing formula (PIEF) on pancreatic exocrine function. METHODS: Patients undergoing a partial pancreatectomy had a jejunal feeding tube inserted and a pancreatic stent exteriorized, facilitating collection of pancreatic secretions. Postoperatively, patients underwent a secretin-stimulation test to document adequate pancreatic reserve. Patients were then randomized to receive jejunal feeding with EF or with PIEF for a 24-hour period, followed by a washout period of feeding with dextrose, and subsequent jejunal feeding with EF or PIEF. RESULTS: The secretin-stimulation test demonstrated significant pancreatic reserve in all patients. There was a mild increase in pancreatic exocrine secretion with jejunal feeding with EF and PIEF compared with baseline and with dextrose. There was increased bicarbonate secretion with EF compared with PIEF, but there were no other significant differences in pancreatic exocrine function. CONCLUSIONS: In this model of partial pancreatectomy, there was no significant difference in pancreatic exocrine output when use of an EF was compared with use of a PIEF for jejunal feeding. Further clinical studies are needed to determine the potential role of PIEF in pancreatic disease.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".