MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2142858172 · doi:10.1177/0115426503018005398

Prophylactic Pancreatic Enzymes to Reduce Feeding Tube Occlusions

2003· article· en· W2142858172 on OpenAlexaff
Annette M. Bourgault, Daren K. Heyland, John Drover, Laurie Keefe, Paula Newman, Andrew G. Day

Bibliographic record

VenueNutrition in Clinical Practice · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicClinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityKingston General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePancreatic enzymesAmylaseOcclusionSodium bicarbonateRandomized controlled trialEnteral administrationLipaseProteaseFeeding tubeIntensive care unitIntubationPancreatitisParenteral nutritionSurgeryInternal medicineEnzymeBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Small-bore, feeding tube occlusion is reported to be as high as 23% to 35%. Pancreatic enzyme solution has been used to dissolve internal clots in feeding tubes. This study examined the prophylactic use of pancreatic enzyme solution with continuous enteral feeding in critically ill patients. METHODS: This was a randomized, unblinded trial conducted in an intensive care unit at a tertiary care hospital. Feeding tubes were randomized to receive pancreatic enzyme solution every 4 hours or usual care. Pancreatic enzyme solution contained lipase 8,000 units, amylase 30,000 units, protease activity 30,000 units, sodium bicarbonate 300 mg, and 5 mL warm sterile water. RESULTS: Ninety-five feeding tubes were followed up in 101 patients. Ten feeding tubes (9.9%) developed primary occlusions. Analysis revealed 2/52 (4%) of the tubes in the enzyme arm had occlusions, whereas 8/49 (16%) of control tubes had occlusions (p = .04). Time to occlusion was significantly longer in the pancreatic enzyme arm (p = .02). CONCLUSIONS: The use of prophylactic pancreatic enzymes may reduce the incidence of feeding tube occlusions.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.358 · 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

Citations41
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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