Effects of Oral Nutritional Supplementation on Nutritional Status in Chronic Hemodialysis Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Protein-calorie malnutrition is common in chronic hemodialysis (CHD) patients and is associated with poor outcome. Very few studies of oral nutritional supplementation have been conducted and these have shown mixed results. Objective : To evaluate nutritional status in our CHD patients receiving oral nutritional supplementation over a period of 6 months. Methods : 22 CHD patients with evidence of malnutrition were included in this prospective study. The inclusion criteria were serum albumin of ≤ 3.5 g/dL or serum prealbumin of ≤ 30 mg/dL and a decrease of dry weight ≥ 5% in the last 3 months or ≥ 10% in the last 6 months. Patients received nutrition intervention by various oral nutritional supplements providing 450 calories and 15.4 grams of protein per day. Compliance was assessed by questioning patients at each HD session. Nutritional parameters were recorded and results were analyzed using paired t test to examine the difference between compliant and non-compliant patients for each nutritional parameter at baselines and 6-month follow-up. Results : 10 patients were considered as non-compliant because ingesting < 75% of prescribed nutritional supplementation. In compliant patients, there were significant increases in concentrations of serum albumin (3.14 ± 0.72 vs 3.57 ± 0.95 g/dL, p < 0.01), serum prealbumin (24.7 ± 6.3 vs 29.5 ± 4.7 mg/dL, p < 0.01) and of the estimated dry weight (64.2 ± 8.5 vs 67.9 ± 6.1 kg, p < 0.05). There was not any significant modification of nutritional markers in non-compliant patients. Dietary intake estimated by dietary recall was unchanged during the study in all patients. Conclusions : When observed, oral nutritional supplementation is effective to improve nutritional markers in malnourished CHD patients. Limits of this intervention are weariness and non-compliance over time.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".