Nutritional Intake and Status in Children With Cystic Fibrosis: Does Age Matter?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether nutritional intake and status vary with age in children with cystic fibrosis (CF). METHODS: Case-control study examining differences in nutritional parameters and intakes in 58 children with CF recruited from a regional centre (2000-2001) and 45 controls. Participants were divided into age groups of 5-8 years, 9-12 years and 13-16 years. Weight, height, body mass index and standard deviation scores were recorded. A 4-day food diary (51 CF, 31 controls) was calculated for macronutrients and micronutrients. RESULTS: Energy intakes (%EAR) increased with age (112%, 115% and 116%, respectively) and were significantly higher in children with CF than controls. Lower weight and growth trends were observed in children ages 5 to 8 years (NS). Weight gain and growth was normal in children with CF ages 9 to 12 years but declined at 13 to 16 years (weight z score -0.85 vs 0.68 P = 0.003, height z score -0.54 vs 0.53 P = 0.002, body mass index z score -0.72 vs 0.41 P = 0.03). Lung function was the most significant predictor of nutritional status at 9 to 12 years (r2 = 0.37, P = 0.006) and 13 to 16 years (r2 = 0.31, P = 0.01), but was not significant in children ages 5 to 8 years. CONCLUSION: Energy intakes increased with age in children with CF and exceeded that of healthy peers in all age groups. Weight gain and growth equaled that of healthy peers at 9 to 12 years but was suboptimal at 5 to 8 years and dramatically declines at 13 to 16 years. Energy intakes were unable to meet the clinical demands of children in these age groups. Both remain vulnerable and require greater nutritional targeting.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".