MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2127290007 · doi:10.1177/0884533608321213

10‐Year Review of Pediatric Intestinal Failure: Clinical Factors Associated With Outcome

2008· article· en· W2127290007 on OpenAlexaff
Linda Casey, K. Lee, Rhonda J. Rosychuk, Justine Turner, Hien Q. Huynh

Bibliographic record

VenueNutrition in Clinical Practice · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicClinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
Canadian institutionsStollery Children's HospitalUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineParenteral nutritionIntestinal failureNecrotizing enterocolitisContext (archaeology)GastroschisisPediatricsShort bowel syndromeInternal medicineIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prediction of outcomes in pediatric intestinal failure is challenging but essential to guide intestinal rehabilitation and transplantation decisions. This review of intestinal failure patients spanning 10 years examines clinical details in relation to outcome to identify factors that may refine predictive accuracy. A search was conducted to identify all children with intestinal failure managed at Stollery Children's Hospital between January 1994 and December 2003. They were divided into 3 groups: early death occurring 100 days. The long-term group was divided according to outcome: death or adaptation. Demographics, diagnosis, nutrition requirements, laboratory parameters, and clinical data were recorded. Groups were compared to identify factors associated with outcome. Necrotizing enterocolitis, gastroschisis, and intestinal atresias were the most common causes for intestinal failure; outcome was not related to diagnosis. Although withdrawal of therapy was common in the early death group, most babies had one or more additional significant comorbidity. Among the 29 babies requiring parenteral nutrition for >100 days with known outcomes, 12 died, 16 adapted fully, and 1 received a multivisceral transplant. Intestinal length >40 cm was associated with a significantly increased risk of mortality (P< .001). Abnormal laboratory values (bilirubin, aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, albumin, and platelet count) after 5 months of age were also significantly different between groups. This data, together with data from previous reviews, should be used to investigate potential predictive factors in prospective studies, particularly in the context of expert multidisciplinary care.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0090.013
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.194
GPT teacher head0.455
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations35
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNutrition in Clinical PracticeSame topicClinical Nutrition and GastroenterologyFrench-language works237,207