The prevalence of coagulation abnormalities in hospitalized patients receiving lipid‐based parenteral nutrition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Vitamin K is not a component of the multivitamin preparation added to parenteral nutrition (PN) solutions, and hospitalized patients receiving parenteral nutrition support are at risk of developing vitamin K deficiency. METHODS: In this study, 84 consecutive patients receiving PN were followed up prospectively to determine the incidence of a raised international normalized ratio (INR). All patients received lipid in their PN, which contains approximately 30 microg of vitamin K/100 mL. RESULTS: Patients were followed up for the course of PN or up to 4 weeks if they needed longer total parenteral nutrition. A raised INR compared with baseline developed in 3.6% of patients. All elevations were mild, and no patients developed clinical bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: It may be unnecessary to routinely supplement patients with vitamin K if they are receiving a lipid emulsion containing significant amounts of vitamin K. For patients receiving warfarin therapy, it will be important for nutrition support services to be aware of the vitamin K content of the lipid emulsion they are using as patients receiving a multivitamin preparation containing vitamin K and lipid emulsion may receive increased amounts of vitamin K, which could lead to warfarin resistance.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".