MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2402400940 · doi:10.1017/s0317167100052756

Tube Feeding in Stroke Patients: A Medical and Ethical Perspective

2001· review· en· W2402400940 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Jeff Blackmer

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDysphagia Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanSaskatoon City Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStroke (engine)DysphagiaNeurologySwallowingMedicineRehabilitationPerspective (graphical)Acute strokeIntensive care medicinePhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSurgeryPsychiatryEmergency department

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dysphagia, or difficulty swallowing, is a relatively common consequence following stroke, with most sources quoting rates of around 40%. The percentage of stroke patients who require tube feeding for nutritional support varies quite widely, with studies quoting rates in the acute phase from 8.5% to 29%. Since stroke patients are likely to constitute a high percentage of patients on a neurology or rehabilitation ward, neurologists and physiatrists are likely to be confronted with the sometimes challenging decision of whether and when to commence tube feeding and whether and when to discontinue it after it has begun. This decision-making process is likely to involve medical, ethical and legal considerations and the main purpose of this paper is to review these considerations and provide some practical recommendations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0060.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.330 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations20
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences NeurologiquesSame topicDysphagia Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207