Changes in Home Parenteral Nutrition Practice Based on the Canadian Home Parenteral Nutrition Patient Registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Since 2005, the Canadian home parenteral nutrition (HPN) registry has collected data on patients' demography, outcomes, and HPN clinical practice. At annual meetings, Canadian HPN programs review and discuss results. AIM: To evaluate changes over time in patient demography, outcomes, and HPN clinical practice using the registry data. METHODS: This retrospective study evaluated 369 patients who were prospectively entered in the registry. Two periods were compared for the first data entry: 2005-2008 (n = 182) and 2011-2014 (n = 187). Patient demography, indications for HPN, HPN regimen, nutrition assessment, vascular access, and number of line sepsis per 1000 catheter days were evaluated. RESULTS: For 2011-2014 compared with 2005-2008, indications for HPN changed significantly, with an increased proportion of patients with cancer (37.9% vs 16.7%) and with fewer cases of short bowel syndrome (32% vs 65.5%); line sepsis rate decreased from 1.58 to 0.97 per 1000 catheter days; and the use of tunneled catheters decreased from 64.3% to 38.0% and was no longer the most frequently chosen vascular access method. In contrast, the proportion of peripherally inserted central catheters increased from 21.6% to 52.9%. In addition, there was a reduction in number and days of hospitalizations related to HPN, and favorable changes were noted in the prescription of energy, proteins, and trace elements. CONCLUSION: The Canadian HPN registry is useful in tracking trends in demography, outcomes, and clinical practice. Results suggest a shift in patient demography and line access with improvement in line sepsis, hospitalizations, and HPN prescriptions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".