Nutritional parameters associated with prolonged hospital stay among ambulatory adult patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Comprehensive evaluations of the nutritional parameters associated with length of hospital stay are lacking. We investigated the association between malnutrition and length of hospital stay in a cohort of ambulatory adult patients. METHODS: From September 2006 to June 2009, we systematically evaluated 1274 ambulatory adult patients admitted to hospital for medical or surgical treatment. We evaluated the associations between malnutrition and prolonged hospital stay (> 17 days [> 75th percentile of distribution]) using multivariable log-linear models adjusted for several potential nutritional and clinical confounders recorded at admission and collected during and at the end of the hospital stay. RESULTS: Nutritional factors associated with a prolonged hospital stay were a Nutritional Risk Index score of less than 97.5 (relative risk [RR] 1.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.31-2.06) and an in-hospital weight loss of 5% or greater (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.30-1.97). Sensitivity analysis of data for patients discharged alive and who had a length of stay of at least three days (n = 1073) produced similar findings (adjusted RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.20-1.89, for Nutritional Risk Index score < 97.5). A significant association was also found with in-hospital starvation of three or more days (RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.01-1.28). INTERPRETATION: Nutritional risk at admission was strongly associated with a prolonged hospital stay among ambulatory adult patients. Another factor associated with length of stay was worsening nutritional status during the hospital stay, whose cause-effect relationship with length of stay should be clarified in intervention trials. Clinicians need to be aware of the impact of malnutrition and of the potential role of worsening nutritional status in prolonging hospital stay.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".