MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Enteral Feeding for High-risk Neonates

2005· review· en· W2027911121 on OpenAlexaff
Shahirose Premji

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Perinatal & Neonatal Nursing · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicClinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnteral administrationMedicineIntensive care medicineParenteral nutritionAdverse effectFeeding tubeSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Enteral feeding is considered a relatively safe method of providing nutritional support to high-risk neonates. Nonetheless, there are associated risks, which can be classified as follows: factors to consider before initiating enteral feeding; feeding tube placement; delivery of milk feedings; and gastrointestinal, environmental, and technical factors. For each classification, this article highlights adverse consequences and synthesizes the literature for evidence-based nursing practice recommendations, which are summarized in the "Conclusion" section. Many gaps are identified in the research literature, and directions for future research are described to ensure safe and comfortable care for high-risk neonates receiving enteral feedings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.331 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Perinatal & Neonatal NursingSame topicClinical Nutrition and GastroenterologyFrench-language works237,207