Parenteral Nutrition in Patients with Advanced Cancer and Gastrointestinal Failure or Obstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p class="cco-body"><span lang="EN-GB">Malnutrition in patients with advanced cancer and gastrointestinal failure (ACGIF) is inevitable. This is a prospective study of a cohort of patients with ACGIF who were treated by home parenteral nutrition (HPN).</span></p><p class="cco-body"><span lang="EN-GB">Included were all patients with ACGIF treated with HPN since January 2003. Data concerning the primary disease, demographics, functional capacity, and PN-related complications were obtained.</span></p><p class="cco-body"><span lang="EN-GB">125 patients, age's 60±12.9 years, were included. Seven (6%) had KPS&lt;50. Median survival was 3.2 months. Cumulative survival</span><span lang="EN-GB">was 0.95, 0.50, 0.25, and 0.09 at two weeks, three and six months, and one year after initiation of HPN, respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed higher mortality associated with male gender (HR 1.48 95% CI 1.03-2.14; p&lt;0.05), albumin level&lt;2.5 gr% (HR 1.73 95% CI 1.18-2.54 p&lt;0.05), and low functional capacity (KPS&lt;50) (HR 2.63 95% CI 1.21-5.74; p&lt;0.05). Survival was not associated with age or BMI.</span></p><p class="cco-body"><span lang="EN-GB">More than 50% of patients survived more than three months, and more than 95% survived longer than two weeks. We cautiously suggest that HPN has prolonged survival and prevented starvation-related manifestations. The decision to initiate HTPN must be reached based on individual considerations, taking into account patient’s preferences. </span></p><p> </p>
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) | 0.000 | 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".