Canadian Home Parenteral Nutrition (HPN) Registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In Canada, there are an estimated 400 home parenteral nutrition (HPN) patients. In 2006, a registry was created to gather patient outcome information. The aim of this study was to validate the registry and report on HPN patient outcomes. METHODS: Several demographic, clinical parameters were collected. For the validation, paired t test and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) were used to assess agreement between repeat entries. For the outcome report, paired t test was used to assess changes, and survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results are expressed as mean ± SEM. RESULTS: On validation, there was high correlation/agreement (P < .05) for most parameters except vascular access/line sepsis, liver disease (ultrasound, biopsy, diagnoses), and hospitalizations. For the outcome report, 96 patients had their data entered at 2.24 ± 0.11 years after baseline. Over the period, there was a significant reduction in PN calories (P = .001) and proteins (P < .001). There were no significant changes in nutrition parameters and laboratory results except for lower platelet counts (P = .028), lower plasma potassium (P = .030), and a trend toward an increase in bilirubin from 19.29 ± 4.65 to 29.06 ± 8.73 µmol/L (P = .071). The QOL decreased significantly over time (P < .001) and the survival on HPN was 17.67 ± 1.89 years. CONCLUSIONS: The registry is a valid tool to assess several clinical parameters. On follow-up, HPN patients maintain good nutrition status while PN is reduced but do have a reduced quality of life.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".