MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147021440 · doi:10.1177/088453360001500205

Clinical Research: Is Routine Vitamin K Supplementation Required in Hospitalized Patients Receiving Parenteral Nutrition?

2000· article· en· W2147021440 on OpenAlex
Donald R. Duerksen, Noreen Papineau

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNutrition in Clinical Practice · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicVitamin K Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaSt. Boniface Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineParenteral nutritionMultivitaminIncidence (geometry)VitaminVitamin K deficiencyInternal medicineVitamin kGastroenterology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vitamin K is not a component of the multivitamin preparation added to parenteral nutrition solutions, and hospitalized patients receiving parenteral nutrition (PN) support are at risk of developing vitamin K deficiency. In this study, 70 consecutive patients receiving PN were followed prospectively to determine the incidence of a raised international normalized ratio (INR). Over a 3‐week period, 20% of patients developed a raised INR compared with baseline. All elevations were mild, with no patients developing clinical bleeding. An alternative to routinely supplementing vitamin K is monitoring INR and supplementing those individuals with elevated coagulation parameters.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.127
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.172
GPT teacher head0.537
Teacher spread0.365 · 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