Recommended European Society of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition protein and energy intakes and weight loss in patients with head and neck cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Information regarding attenuation of weight loss in patients with head and neck cancer consuming energy and protein intakes at levels recommended by the European Society of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ESPEN) is limited. METHODS: Newly diagnosed patients with head and neck cancer (n = 38) consuming food orally had weight and 3-day diet records prospectively collected at baseline, the end of treatment, and at the 2.5-month follow-up. Weight loss of patients consuming the ESPEN recommendations of ≥30 kcal/kg/d energy and 1.2 g/kg/d protein versus those consuming less were compared. Weight loss of oral nutrition supplement consumers versus oral nutrition supplement nonconsumers was also compared. RESULTS: Despite ≥30 kcal/kg/d intakes at posttreatment and follow-up, mean weight loss was 10.3% from baseline to posttreatment, and 4.0% from posttreatment to follow-up. At posttreatment, oral nutrition supplement consumers with intakes ≥30 kcal/kg/d lost twice as much weight as nonconsumers with intakes of ≥30 kcal/kg/d (p = .001). CONCLUSION: Current ESPEN recommendations may not attenuate weight loss in patients with head and neck cancer, especially those consuming oral nutrition supplements. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Head Neck 38:1248-1257, 2016.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".