Clinical Study for UNECE U-168, an Enteral Nutritional Formula for Patients Receiving Long-Term Nasogastric Tube Feeding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to examine the effect of UNECE U-168, an enteral nutrient formula on the nutritional status and renal or hepatic function. During November, 2009 to May, 2011, 30 participants (13 males and 17 females; average age 73.7±15.1 years) were recruited from five nursing homes in New Taipei City, Taiwan. All participants had been on nasogastric tube feeding for three months or more. For four weeks, UNECE U-168 (1500 Kcal) enteral nutritional formula was given to participants as part of their diet. Anthropometric and biochemical measurements were performed. Differences of the measurements before and the nutritional intervention were compared. After 4 weeks of UNECE U-168 enteral nutritional formula as diet, body weight and BMI were stable. Nutritional indicators including serum albumin and total protein levels were maintained at similar levels. Total triglyceride and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels had a significant decrease (p<0.05). Aspartate transferase, alanine transaminase and alkaline phosphatase showed normal values. In addition, creatinine and blood urea nitrogen levels were all within the normal range. UNECE U-168 enteral nutritional formula can maintain the nutritional status in diabetic patients and have no adverse effects on the hepatic and renal function.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".