Effects of Polymeric Formula vs Elemental Formula in Neonatal Piglets With Short Bowel Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intestinal adaptation is important for recovery in short bowel syndrome (SBS). This process is dependent on the presence of enteral nutrition (EN) and trophic factors, such as glucagon-like peptide-2 (GLP-2). In clinical practice, elemental formula is often used to feed neonates with SBS, whereas animal studies suggest polymeric formula promotes better intestinal adaptation. In neonatal piglet models of SBS, with or without ileum, we compared the elemental with the polymeric formula, including the effect on endogenous GLP-2. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-eight piglets underwent 75% mid-intestinal resection with jejunoileal anastomosis, 75% distal-intestinal resection with jejunocolic anastomosis (JC), or sham without resection. Parenteral nutrition (PN) started postoperatively, tapering as EN was increased, according to clinical criteria, based on diarrhea and weight. Within groups, piglets were randomized to an isocaloric/isonitrogenous elemental (amino acid) or polymeric (intact protein) diet. Plasma GLP-2 and histology for adaptation were measured at 14 days. RESULTS: Within both SBS and control groups, no difference in adaptation was observed according to diet. A difference was observed only within the JC piglet group with regard to clinical outcomes. In these piglets, compared with elemental formula, the polymeric formula was associated with more diarrhea ( P = .023) and longer duration of PN support (P = .047). CONCLUSION: An overall benefit of the polymeric formula over the elemental formula on gut adaptation was not observed. Furthermore, SBS piglets without ileum had less ability to tolerate polymeric formula, contributing to more days of PN support.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".