MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2606753082 · doi:10.3390/nu9040388

Parenteral Nutrition and Lipids

2017· review· en· W2606753082 on OpenAlexafffund
Maitreyi Raman, Abdulelah Almutairdi, Leanne Mulesa, Cathy Alberda, Colleen Beattie, Leah Gramlich

Bibliographic record

VenueNutrients · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicClinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
Canadian institutionsRoyal Alexandra HospitalAlberta Health ServicesUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
FundersAlberta Health Services
KeywordsParenteral nutritionSoybean oilFish oilCalorieFood scienceOlive oilFish <Actinopterygii>Blood lipidsMedicineChemistryBiologyBiotechnologyBiochemistryCholesterolInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lipids have multiple physiological roles that are biologically vital. Soybean oil lipid emulsions have been the mainstay of parenteral nutrition lipid formulations for decades in North America. Utilizing intravenous lipid emulsions in parenteral nutrition has minimized the dependence on dextrose as a major source of nonprotein calories and prevents the clinical consequences of essential fatty acid deficiency. Emerging literature has indicated that there are benefits to utilizing alternative lipids such as olive/soy-based formulations, and combination lipids such as soy/MCT/olive/fish oil, compared with soybean based lipids, as they have less inflammatory properties, are immune modulating, have higher antioxidant content, decrease risk of cholestasis, and improve clinical outcomes in certain subgroups of patients. The objective of this article is to review the history of IVLE, their composition, the different generations of widely available IVLE, the variables to consider when selecting lipids, and the complications of IVLE and how to minimize them.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.145
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.288 · 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

Citations146
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNutrientsSame topicClinical Nutrition and GastroenterologyFrench-language works237,207