Quality of Life Analysis During Transition From Stationary to Portable Infusion Pump in Home Parenteral Nutrition Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Quality of life (QOL) of patients receiving home parenteral nutrition (HPN) may be impacted by device technology. Historically, our HPN patients used pole-mounted pumps which can hinder activities and affect QOL. METHODS: Patients receiving HPN with a pole-mounted pump completed Short Form 36 (SF-36®) and pump-specific questionnaires. Patients were then enrolled in a 2-month prospective crossover open study. Patients were randomized to use a pole-mounted pump or a portable pump. After 1 month, each arm crossed over. Measurements were repeated at 4 and 8 weeks. RESULTS: Participants included 5 males, 15 females; age 52.8 ± 3.3 (mean ± SEM) years; 50% had short bowel syndrome; received HPN for 83.3 ± 15.9 months; infused HPN over 11.2 ± 0.3 hours/day; 4.3 ± 0.4 days/week. Portable pump users scored 53.75 ± 5.64, 61.25 ± 6.14, and 40.31 ± 4.94 in SF-36v2 physical, social, and health vitality, respectively, while the stationary pump users scored 45.50 ± 4.82, 55.00 ± 5.97, and 35.31 ± 4.63, respectively (NS). They reported ease of movement between rooms (4.11 ± 0.21 vs 1.44 ± 0.20; P = .001); when traveling (5.00 ± 0.00 vs 3.00 ± 0.45; P < .02) (1 = very difficult, 5 = very easy); 5.0% were sleep disturbed with the portable compared to 42.1% with pole-mounted pump (P < .04). Overall, patients were significantly happier with the portable vs pole-mounted pump (4.53 ± 0.19 vs 2.68 ± 0.22; P < .001) (1 = very unhappy, 5 = very happy). CONCLUSION: Our HPN patients reported improved happiness and satisfaction regarding ease of use and function with a portable vs pole-mounted pump.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".