Patient Outcomes Related to Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Placement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although many aspects of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) have been addressed in the literature, attention to psychologic and social outcomes of PEG has been limited. Our goal was to assess a range of physical, psychologic, and social outcomes related to PEG feeding. This study is a follow-up survey of patients undergoing PEG and/or their surrogates. Data were collected by semistructured interviews in two tertiary hospitals in Alberta, Canada. Measurements consisted of PEG status at 1-year follow-up, quality of life, impact on caregivers, and opinions about long-term support via PEG. We included 71 patients in the study. Of all 39% of patients died, 32% had the PEG still in place, and for 28% the PEG was removed at the end of the 1-year follow-up. The prognosis of the attending physician at the initial visit and the underlying disease were significantly related to the outcome (p < 0.05). After 1 year, 85% of all patients whose PEGs were still in place, were not working or studying or managing their own household in any capacity, 67% were not managing personal care, and 19% were feeling very ill. Fifty-two percent of the caregivers spent 15 hours or more per week visiting and caring for the patient. At the 1-year follow-up, all ten surviving patients who could be interviewed agreed they would have a PEG again. Seventy percent of the caregivers said that they would want the same decision to be made. Although a majority of patients and caregivers did not regret the decision to place a PEG, this did not necessarily mean enhanced quality of life. Developing strategies to select patients who will benefit from long-term nutritional support could improve patient outcomes.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".