Challenges and Outcomes of a Randomized Study of Early Nutrition Support during Autologous Stem-Cell Transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients undergoing myeloablative conditioning regimens and autologous stem-cell transplantation (asct) are at high risk of malnutrition. This randomized study aimed to determine if early nutrition support (commenced when oral intake is less than 80% of estimated requirements) compared with usual care (commenced when oral intake is less than 50% of estimated requirements) reduces weight loss in well-nourished patients undergoing high-nutritional-risk conditioning chemotherapy and asct. In the 50 well-nourished patients who were randomized, the outcomes evaluated included changes in weight and lean body mass (mid-upper arm circumference), length of stay, time to hemopoietic engraftment, and quality of life (Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale - Short Form). On secondary analysis, after exclusion of a single extreme outlier, both groups demonstrated significant weight loss over time (p = 0.0005). Weight loss was less in the early nutrition support group at time of discharge (mean: -0.4% ± 2.9% vs. -3.4% ± 2.6% in the usual care group, p = 0.001). This difference in weight was no longer observed at 6 months after discharge (mean: -1.0% ± 6.8% vs. 1.4% ± 6.1%, p = 0.29). In practice, an early start to nutrition support proved difficult because of patient resistance and physician preference, with 8 patients (33%) in the control group and 4 (15%) in the intervention group not commencing nutrition support when stipulated by the study protocol. No significant differences between the groups were found for other outcomes. In well-nourished patients receiving asct, early nutrition support maintained weight during admission, but did not affect other outcomes. Interpretation of results should take into consideration the difficulties encountered with intervention implementation.
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 | 0.022 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".