Nasogastric and nasojejunal feeding did not differ for acute-phase response or pain in severe acute pancreatitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
TherapeuticsJuly 1, 2005Nasogastric and nasojejunal feeding did not differ for acute-phase response or pain in severe acute pancreatitisJohn C. Marshall, MD, FRCSCJohn C. Marshall, MD, FRCSCSt. Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (J.C.M.)Search for more papers by this authorAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/ACPJC-2005-143-1-017 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail Source CitationEatock FC, Chong P, Menezes N, et al. A randomized study of early nasogastric versus nasojejunal feeding in severe acute pancreatitis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2005;100:432-9. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15667504Clinical Impact RatingsHospitalists: Gastroenterology: Reference1 Al-Omran M, Groof A, Wilke D. Enteral versus parenteral nutrition for acute pancreatitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;(1):CD002837. [PMID: 12535441] Google Scholar Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAffiliations: St. Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (J.C.M.) PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails July 1, 2005Volume 143, Issue 1Page: 17KeywordsAbdominal painAcute pancreatitisAnalgesicsC-reactive proteinsCarbohydratesClinical trialsEndoscopyFatsFoodGastrointestinal tractHospitalistsInflammationIntensive care unitsJejunumMucous membranesNutritionPancreatitisProteins ePublished: 9 March 2020 Issue Published: July 1, 2005 Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2005 by American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.PDF downloadLoading ...
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 | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".