Colorectal Surgery Patients Prefer Simple Solid Foods to Clear Fluids as the First Postoperative Meal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Randomized controlled trials have established that there is no benefit to withholding oral food and fluids from colorectal surgery patients postoperatively. The aim of this survey was to determine food preferences for the first postoperative meal and compare these with a traditional clear-fluid diet. METHODS: One hundred forty-five elective colorectal surgery patients were surveyed about their preferences for 35 common foods within 72 hours of surgery and their levels of nausea, hunger, and pain. Preferences were examined by postoperative day (one vs. two) and levels of nausea, hunger, and pain. RESULTS: The survey showed that patients significantly preferred solid foods as early as the first postoperative day and their preferences had little congruency with the traditional clear-fluid diet. Foods highest in preference, such as eggs, regular broth soup (e.g., chicken noodle soup), toast, and potatoes, were significantly more preferred than common clear-fluid diet items such as gelatin, clear broth, and carbonated beverages (P < 0.01). Oral supplements were preferred by only 44%. Patients reported low levels of nausea, hunger, and pain. CONCLUSION: Postoperative colorectal surgery patients prefer to receive simple solid foods rather than a clear-fluid diet as their first postoperative meal.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".