MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2515655907 · doi:10.1177/0884533616663635

Home Parenteral Nutrition

2016· review· en· W2515655907 on OpenAlexaff
Manpreet S. Mundi, Bradley R. Salonen, Sara L. Bonnes

Bibliographic record

VenueNutrition in Clinical Practice · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicClinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Nutrition, Metabolism and Diabetes
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineParenteral nutritionFish oilOlive oilSoybean oilIntensive care medicineCalorieLinoleic acidFish <Actinopterygii>Food scienceFatty acidInternal medicineBiochemistryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the first intravenous nutrition support attempt with olive oil in the 17th century, intravenous fat emulsions (IVFEs) have evolved to become an integral component in the management of patients receiving home parenteral nutrition (HPN). IVFEs serve as a calorie source and provide essential fatty acids (linoleic acid and α-linolenic acid) in patients unable to achieve adequate intake of these fatty acids through alternative means. However, IVFE use is also associated with multiple complications, including increased infection risk, liver disease, and systemic proinflammatory states. In the United States, most IVFEs are composed of 100% soybean oil; internationally multiple alternative IVFEs (using fish oil, olive oil, and long- and medium-chain triglycerides) are available or being developed. The hope is that these IVFEs will prevent, or decrease the risk of, some of the HPN-associated complications. The goal of this article is to review how IVFEs came into use, their composition and metabolism, options for IVFE delivery in HPN, benefits and risks of IVFE use, and strategies to minimize the risks associated with IVFE use in HPN 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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.004

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 head0.158
GPT teacher head0.509
Teacher spread0.351 · 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

Citations35
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNutrition in Clinical PracticeSame topicClinical Nutrition and GastroenterologyFrench-language works237,207