MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086643748 · doi:10.1016/j.adnc.2003.09.002

A CASE STUDY UTILIZING AN ENTERAL REFEEDING TECHNIQUE IN A PREMATURE INFANT WITH SHORT BOWEL SYNDROME

2003· review· en· W2086643748 on OpenAlexaff
Victoria A. Gardner, J. Mark Walton, Lorraine Chessell

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Neonatal Care · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicClinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health SciencesMcMaster Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEnteral administrationShort bowel syndromeFailure to thriveRefeeding syndromeParenteral nutritionIntensive care medicineFistulaPediatricsGastrointestinal tractClinical PracticeSurgeryInternal medicineNursingMalnutrition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Premature and full-term infants may be born with congenital abnormalities or develop acquired lesions of the gastrointestinal tract that require the placement of an enterostomy. Enterostomies can result in significant segments of excluded small bowel, creating a functional short bowel syndrome. Infants with enterostomies can develop dehydration, electrolyte imbalance, and failure to thrive. An illustrative case report of a premature infant with short bowel syndrome treated with enteral refeedings via a mucous fistula is presented. This report highlights the lessons learned from the interdisciplinary team's collective 10-year experience with enteral refeeding in infants with enterostomies. The physiologic basis for this approach is reviewed and literature reports are outlined. The specific nursing care and step-by-step techniques to deliver enteral refeeding through the mucous fistula are provided along with implications for clinical practice, education, and research.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.350 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Neonatal CareSame topicClinical Nutrition and GastroenterologyFrench-language works237,207