Randomized clinical trial of the anabolic effect of hypocaloric parenteral nutrition after abdominal surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The observed failure of hypocaloric nutrition to establish an anabolic state after surgery may reflect inadequate control for the type and quality of analgesia in the studies performed. This study was designed to test the hypothesis that hypocaloric nutrition induces anabolism in patients who receive effective segmental pain relief using perioperative epidural analgesia. METHODS: Sixteen patients who underwent colorectal surgery and received epidural analgesia were randomly assigned to receive intravenous glucose either without (glucose only) or with amino acids (nutrition). Feeding was administered over 48 h from surgical skin incision until the second day after operation. Glucose provided 50 per cent of the patient's resting energy expenditure (REE). Amino acids were infused at rates that provided 20 per cent of REE. Leucine rate of appearance (Ra), leucine oxidation and non-oxidative leucine disposal (NOLD) were assessed by measuring L-[1-13C]leucine kinetics. A positive leucine balance, that is the difference between NOLD and leucine Ra, indicated anabolism. RESULTS: After surgery, leucine Ra in the nutrition group was lower than that in the glucose only group (mean(s.d.) 88(25) versus 131(22) micromol per kg per h). The leucine balance remained negative in the glucose only group, whereas it became positive in the nutrition group (mean(s.d.) -24(3) versus 38(12) micromol per kg per h; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients who receive hypocaloric parenteral nutrition can be rendered anabolic after colorectal surgery in the presence of epidural analgesia.
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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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".