Enteral nutrition reduced postoperative complications but increased minor adverse effects in gastrointestinal cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bozzetti F, Braga M, Gianotti L, et al. Postoperative enteral versus parenteral nutrition in malnourished patients with gastrointestinal cancer: a randomised multicentre trial. Lancet2001 Nov 3; 358 : 1487 –92 [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] QUESTION: In malnourished patients having elective surgery for gastrointestinal cancer, does enteral nutrition reduce postoperative complications when compared with parenteral nutrition? Randomised {allocation concealed}*, unblinded, controlled trial with follow up to discharge. 10 centres in Italy. 317 patients who were ≥18 years of age (mean age 64 y, 58% men) and had weight loss ≥10% of usual body weight in the previous 6 months, histologically confirmed gastrointestinal cancer, and major planned elective surgery. Exclusion criteria were hepatic, renal, or cardiac dysfunction; Karnofsky performance status <60; pregnancy; ongoing infection; or intestinal anastomosis of the large bowel without a diverting stoma. Follow up was complete. Patients were allocated to enteral … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DLancet%26rft.stitle%253DLancet%26rft.aulast%253DBozzetti%26rft.auinit1%253DF.%26rft.volume%253D358%26rft.issue%253D9292%26rft.spage%253D1487%26rft.epage%253D1492%26rft.atitle%253DPostoperative%2Benteral%2Bversus%2Bparenteral%2Bnutrition%2Bin%2Bmalnourished%2Bpatients%2Bwith%2Bgastrointestinal%2Bcancer%253A%2Ba%2Brandomised%2Bmulticentre%2Btrial.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1016%252FS0140-6736%252801%252906578-3%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F11705560%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0140-6736(01)06578-3&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=11705560&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febnurs%2F5%2F3%2F88.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000172055800010&link_type=ISI
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".