Metabolic Bone Disease in Patients Receiving Home Parenteral Nutrition: A Canadian Study and Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Metabolic bone disease (MBD) is a significant complication in patients receiving long-term home parenteral nutrition (HPN). Pamidronate has been poorly studied in this population. We examine the prevalence and risk factors for MBD and examine changes in bone mineral density (BMD) after pamidronate administration. METHODS: First, a chart review of patients receiving HPN for >1 year was performed, and Pearson correlations were used to assess associations between MBD (defined as t score<-1) and risk factors. Second, the effect of IV pamidronate on BMD was studied prospectively in 11 HPN patients. Results were compared using a t-test. RESULTS: Charts were reviewed in 25 patients (15 F, 10 M): age, 56.9+/-3.1 years; body mass index (BMI), 21.2+/-0.57 kg/m2; months receiving HPN, 113.2+/-0.09; and days per week receiving HPN, 5.08+/-0.39. MBD was present in 33% of patients for the spine and hip and in 50% for the femoral neck; 24% had previous fractures. There was a significant negative correlation between the duration of HPN and BMD (r=-0.40) for all measurements. From those patients, 11 received IV pamidronate for a mean of 22.2+/-5.4 months. At baseline, their mean HPN treatment duration was 10.6+/-6.3 years. Overall, BMD results showed a trend toward improvement in the mean t score of the spine and hip postpamidronate therapy (pre, -3.1+/-0.75; post, -2.9+/-0.69; p=.07). After excluding 2 patients receiving corticosteroids, the mean t score of the spine showed significant improvement (prepamidronate -3.4+/-0.57 vs post-pamidronate -3.1+/-0.65, p=.036). CONCLUSIONS: In our HPN population, 76% had MBD and 24% had previous fractures. The results suggest that these patients may benefit from pamidronate. More studies are needed to assess the efficacy of pamidronate.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".