Hallmarks in the History of Enteral and Parenteral Nutrition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parenteral nutrition (PN) and enteral nutrition (EN) have a very long history, emerging in the ancient world and developing throughout the common epoch. This history dates back as far as 3500 bc to the ancient Egyptians, Indians, and Chinese. Their medical practices were the first reports of enteral feeding therapy, provided via rectum with enemas of wine, milk, whey, wheat, and barley. Hippocrates and Plato, in ancient Greece, were the first personalities to emphasize the importance of diet on health. In the following centuries, Erasistratus and Herophilus described the first notion of the circulatory system, and Oribasius and Celsus described the role of nutrition and disease. There is a great historical gap between the times of Galen (2nd century), who elaborated on the circulatory system; Ibn Zuhr (12th century), who constructed the first model of PN; and Capivacceus (16th century), who placed the first tube for EN. The 17th-19th centuries showed major developments in modern nutrition elements. Steps toward artificial nutrition began in 1628 with the detailed description of blood circulation by William Harvey; however, most of the advances in enteral and parenteral feeding techniques, solutions, and formulas took place in the 20th century. Over the last decade of the 20th century, research focused on metabolic control, multitude formulas, timing and the combination of EN and PN for intensive care patients.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".