Prescription of Trace Elements in Adults on Home Parenteral Nutrition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Since the introduction of long-term parenteral nutrition (PN), morbidity due to inadequate replacement or toxicity of routinely administered trace elements has been well described. After decades of experience, much debate still exists about optimal supplementation. In practice, trace elements (TEs) seem to be frequently provided by prescribing an all-inclusive commercial multi-TE admixture with little dosage flexibility. AIM: Our goal was to review TE supplementation practice among 5 PN support centers across Canada, through a retrospective review of the Canadian Home PN Registry. METHODS: Baseline demographic, clinical, and biochemical parameters along with information regarding the PN prescription of 135 patients with complete records were retrieved from the registry database collected between 2005 and 2007. TE supplementation prescriptions were compared with recent guidelines as well as between groups of patients with different PN indications and dietary intake status. Consent was signed by all participating patients. RESULTS: The average daily PN concentrations of TE were as follows: zinc, 8.6 ± 5.5 mg (130.92 ± 84.23 µmol); manganese, 452 ± 184 µg (8.22 ± 3.34 µmol); selenium, 78 ± 45 µg (0.99 ± 0.57 µmol); chromium, 11 ± 5 µg (0.21 ± 0.10 µmol); copper, 0.64 ± 0.35 mg (10.11 ± 5.58 µmol); and iodine, 77 ± 42 µg (0.61 ± 0.33 µmol). The mean daily supplementation of zinc, manganese, copper, and selenium exceeded published recommendations. Patients' underlying anatomy or indication for PN did not significantly influence decisions regarding replacement standards. CONCLUSION: Parenteral TE supplementation in Canadian PN programs needs to be reviewed and adjusted according to most current guidelines. This may require a reevaluation of the commercial TE preparations currently available in Canada and potential new products worldwide to avoid oversupplementation and potential toxicity.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".