Randomized clinical trial of glutamine-supplemented <i>versus</i> standard parenteral nutrition in infants with surgical gastrointestinal disease (<i>Br J Surg</i> 2012; 99: 929–938)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Designing and conducting randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in paediatric surgery is challenging. It is necessary to select a clinically relevant and measurable primary outcome, experience is required to recruit sick infants, and setting governance procedures in place to oversee the trial takes time, funding and forethought. This RCT addressed these issues; 174 patients were randomized, and a trial steering committee and independent data monitoring and ethics committee (DMEC) were established. At the end of the funding period and after confidential review of the data, the DMEC, however, advised that the trial be terminated early. It considered that there was a less than 5 per cent chance of the hypothesized differences in primary outcome being observed even if the full sample (250 patients) was recruited. It is then reported that infants in the placebo group were observed to experience their first episode of sepsis earlier than those receiving supplements; this prompted an exploratory analysis that showed an extended time to first sepsis in the glutamine group during total parenteral nutrition.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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.
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".