Comparison Between Premixed and Compounded Parenteral Nutrition Solutions in Hospitalized Patients Requiring Parenteral Nutrition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Parenteral nutrition (PN) may be provided through compounded or premixed solutions. OBJECTIVE: To determine the proportion of stable custom-compounded PN prescriptions that would fit within a 20% deviance of an existing premixed PN solution. METHODS: A retrospective study design was used. Inpatients who received PN in non-critical care units in the preceding year were screened for eligibility. Results are reported descriptively as means (95% confidence intervals) and proportions. RESULTS: We reviewed 97 PN prescriptions that met inclusion criteria. Stable hospital PN prescriptions compared with the reference premixed prescription provided 1838 (1777-1898) vs 1843 (1781-1905) kcal/d, P = .43; dextrose, 266 (254-277) vs 225 (216-234) g/d, P < .001; amino acids, 100 (95.9-104) vs 95.2 (91.7-98.7) g/d, P < .001; and lipids, 53.2 (51.3-55.1) vs 76.5 (73.8-79.2) g/d, P < .001. Fifty-eight of 97 (59.8%) matched for 2 of 3 macronutrients. Hospital compared with premixed lipid was lower 53.6 (43-64.2) g/d vs 75.5 (60.5-90.5) g/d, P < .001. Electrolytes differed between hospital and premixed solutions: sodium, 98.6 (95.0-102) vs 66.9 (64.6-69.9) mmol/L, P < .001; potassium, 93.7 (89.0-98.3) vs 57.4 (55.4-59.4) mmol/L, P < .001; and magnesium, 5.4 (4.8-5.4) vs 7.6 (7.4-7.9) mmol/L. CONCLUSIONS: Calories and protein were remarkably similar, but dextrose, lipid, and electrolytes differed between hospital PN and the reference premixed prescription. We believe that there may be a role for premixed solutions in quaternary centers in stable non-critically ill patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".