MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

An Observational Study of SMOFlipid® Versus Intralipid® on the Evolution of Parenteral Nutrition Associated Liver Disease in Neonates with Intestinal Failure

2017· article· en· W2630773687 on OpenAlexaffabout
Christina Belza, John C. Wales, Glenda Courtney‐Martin, Nicole da Silva, Yaron Avitzur, Paul W. Wales

Bibliographic record

VenueTransplantation · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicClinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineParenteral nutritionIntestinal failureInternal medicineCholestasisDemographicsLiver diseaseRetrospective cohort studyObservational studyCohortShort bowel syndromeSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: SMOFlipid® has been licensed in Canada in 2013 and has become the standard lipid emulsion for patients managed in our intestinal rehabilitation program (IRP). Objective: To compare outcomes in neonates with intestinal failure (IF) who received SMOFlipid® compared to Intralipid® to assess outcomes of cholestasis and growth. Methods: Retrospective cohort study of neonates with intestinal failure (IF) with a follow-up of 12 months. Patients were stratified into two groups [Group 1 (SMOFlipid®) and group 2 (historical cohort who received Intralipid®]. Neonates who were septic at admission were excluded. Patients recruited between Jan 1, 2008 through Dec 31, 2015 with observation period ending Dec 31, 2016. Data collection included demographics, diagnosis, bowel anatomy, and parenteral nutrition (PN) support. The primary outcome was conjugated bilirubin (CB) at 3, 6, 9, 12 months, proportion of patients who developed CB 34, 50, and 100umol/L, proportion of patients who received Omegaven® and were listed and/or received transplantation. Secondary outcomes pertain to growth [z-score for weight and height at 3, 6, 9, 12 months]. Statistical analysis included the Mann–Whitney U and Chi-square with an alpha value of <0.05 considered significant. Results: 37 patients were evaluated; 17 patients received SMOFlipid® and 20 patients received Intralipid®. There were no differences in demographics, diagnosis, IF category or residual bowel anatomy. There was no difference in percentage of PN support at 3, 6, 9 or 12 months. SMOFlipid patients were less likely to reach CB 34 (24% vs 55%, p=0.05) and 50umol/L (11.8% vs 45%; p=0.028) and did not require Omegaven (0 vs 30%; p=0.014). CB level at 3 months after initiation of PN was lower in patients receiving SMOFlipid (0 vs 36umol/L; p=0.01). Weight Z-scores were improved for patients on SMOFlipid at 3 months (−0.932 vs −2.092; p=0.028) and 6 months (−0.633 vs −1.614; p=0.018). There was no difference between groups for central venous access days or sepsis/1000 catheter days. No patients in either group were listed for transplant. Conclusion: Neonates with IF who received SMOFlipid® at time of PN initiation, demonstrated lower CB levels over first 12 months. A lower proportion of SMOFlipid® patients reached a CB of 34, 50 and 100umol/L or required Omegaven® rescue. SMOFlipid® delivered at conventional doses appears to slow progression of IFALD while maintaining growth within normal parameters.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.097
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransplantationSame topicClinical Nutrition and GastroenterologyFrench-language works237,207