Parenteral ω‐3 Fatty Acid Lipid Emulsions for Children With Intestinal Failure and Other Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is growing interest in the use of ω-3 fatty acid (n-3FA) lipid emulsions to prevent complications associated with parenteral nutrition. The authors systematically reviewed the evidence on the benefits and safety of n-3FA compared with standard lipid emulsions in children with intestinal disease, critical illness, trauma, or postoperative complications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors searched 4 bibliographic databases from their inception to March 2011, conference proceedings, trial registries, and reference lists. Two reviewers independently selected studies, assessed methodological quality, and rated the strength of the evidence. One reviewer extracted and a second reviewer verified data. The authors summarized findings qualitatively and conducted meta-analysis when appropriate. RESULTS: Five randomized controlled trials with unclear risk of bias and 3 high-quality prospective cohort studies were included. The studies examined premature, low birth weight infants (n = 6) and children with heart disease (n = 1) or intestinal failure (n = 1). The strength of evidence was consistently low or very low across all lipid emulsion comparisons and outcomes. In young children, n-3FA emulsions resulted in improvement in some biochemical outcomes of intestinal failure-associated liver disease but no difference in mortality. Few studies examined patient-important outcomes, such as length of hospital and intensive care stay; need for transplantation, growth, and cognitive development; or the long-term effects and potential harms associated with these therapies. CONCLUSIONS: Currently, there is a lack of sufficient high-quality data to support the use of parenteral n-3FA lipid emulsions in children. Future trials examining long-term clinical outcomes and harms are needed.
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 | 0.010 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".