MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2202909413 · doi:10.1177/1941406415615556

Feeding Practices and Outcomes of Infants Undergoing the Norwood Procedure

2015· article· en· W2202909413 on OpenAlexaff
Megan R. Beggs, Chloë Joynt, Ernest Phillipos, Gonzalo Garcia Guerra, Bodil Katrine Larsen

Bibliographic record

VenueICAN Infant Child & Adolescent Nutrition · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Heart Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsStollery Children's HospitalUniversity of AlbertaAlberta Health Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHypoplastic left heart syndromeParenteral nutritionEnteral administrationDemographicsNorwood procedurePediatricsSurgeryInternal medicineHeart disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective. To determine if early pre- and postoperative enteral feeding was associated with improved postoperative outcomes in infants with hypoplastic left heart syndrome undergoing the Norwood procedure. Study Design. Retrospective chart review of infants undergoing stage 1 surgical palliation for hypoplastic left heart syndrome. Results. Baseline demographics were similar between infants who received preoperative enteral nutrition (n = 17) and those who did not (n = 23). Infants who received no enteral nutrition had higher preoperative serum lactate levels (3.7 ± 2.1 vs 2.5 ± 0.8 mmol/L, P = .02). Postoperative length of stay, days of parenteral nutrition, and progression of enteral nutrition did not differ between groups. Postoperative length of stay was positively correlated with postoperative number of days from first to full enteral nutrition (r = .6; P < .0005) and day at full enteral nutrition (r = .6; P < .0005) but not day of first enteral nutrition (r = .15; P = .382). Conclusion. While current evidence indicates benefit of early enteral feeding, no association was found between preoperative enteral nutrition and postoperative outcomes measured. Further research using feeding algorithms may help inform care of these complex infants.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.478

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueICAN Infant Child & Adolescent NutritionSame topicCongenital Heart Disease StudiesFrench-language works237,207