Early versus Late Enteral Feeding in Patients with Acute Cervical Spinal Cord Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: A prospective randomized clinical pilot study to compare early versus late enteral feeding in patients with acute cervical spinal cord injury. OBJECTIVES: To compare the incidence of infections in patients with acute cervical spinal cord injury who received early versus late enteral feeding. Secondary objectives included assessing nutritional status, feeding tolerance, the number of ventilator hours, and acute-care hospital length of stay. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Early nutritional support has been found to be beneficial in critically ill patients. However, the same benefits may not be realized in patients with acute cervical spinal cord injury because of their unique nutritional challenges. METHODS: Eligible patients were randomized to early feeding (initiated before 72 hours after injury) and late (initiated more than 120 hours after injury). Patients were stratified on the basis of their neurologic level. Patients were assessed daily for the first 15 days. After that time, infections (according to Center for Disease Control criteria), ventilator hours, and length of acute-care hospital stay were tracked. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients met the eligibility criteria, and 17 patients were included in the analysis. There were 7 patients in the early group and 10 in the late group. The early group had a mean of 2.4 +/- 1.5 infections compared with the late group, which had a mean of 1.7 +/- 1.1 infections. Secondary outcomes were not substantially different between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study failed to detect any differences in the incidence of infection, nutritional status, feeding complications, number of ventilator hours, or length of stay between patients receiving early versus late initiation of enteral feeding. These data will assist in the determination of an adequate sample size for future studies.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".