Classic Article: Commentary on “Metabolic Studies in Total Parenteral Nutrition with Lipid in Man. Comparison with Glucose
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A study was undertaken of patients on a regimen of total parenteral nutrition comparing the nitrogen balance, energy substrates, blood amino acids, immunoreactive insulin, and immunoreactive glucagon levels during the sequential infusion of nonprotein calories as either glucose alone (glucose system) or 83% as Intralipid (Pharmacia Fine Chemicals, Montreal, Canada) and 17% glucose (lipid system). These nonprotein calories were administered with a constant background of amino acids (1 g/kg per day), vitamins, and minerals. Each system was infused for a week at a time and the order of infusion randomized. In some patients whole blood arteriovenous (A‐V) levels of amino acids were measured across forearm muscle. During the glucose system there was a significantly higher level of pyruvate, lactate, alanine, and immunoreactive insulin, consistent with glucose being the principal source of energy. In contrast, during the lipid system there was a rise in free fatty acids and ketone bodies with a fall in insulin, suggesting that lipid was now the principal source of energy. Despite these two very diverse metabolic situations the nitrogen balance with both systems was positive to a comparable degree after the establishment of equilibrium. Correspondingly, A‐V differences of whole blood amino acid nitrogen showed uptake by muscle to an equivalent degree with both systems. Clinical studies indicated that the lipid system as defined herein could be infused by peripheral vein for up to 43 days with resultant weight gain, elevation of serum proteins, and healing of fistulae. Our studies suggest that for both metabolic and clinical reasons exogenously infused lipid is a suitable source of nonprotein calories. (J Clin Invest 57:125–136, 1976)
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 | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.030 | 0.030 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
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".