MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Factors Related to the Development of Small Bowel Bacterial Overgrowth in Pediatric Intestinal Failure

2017· article· en· W2675914267 on OpenAlexaff
Christina Belza, Karen Steinberg, 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 nutritionGastroschisisRefractory (planetary science)Internal medicineBirth weightGastroenterologyGestational ageRetrospective cohort studyLogistic regressionShort bowel syndromeWeaningPediatricsSurgeryPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Small bowel bacterial overgrowth (SBBO) is a challenge in the management of pediatric intestinal failure (PIF). The development of SBBO may delay or prevent weaning of parenteral nutrition (PN) contributing to other complications. Our goal was to determine the proportion of patients treated for SBBO by an intestinal rehabilitation program and factors related to its development. Methods: A retrospective analysis of PIF patients referred between 2008–2014. Data was collected on factors related to IF and SBBO. Patients were also evaluated for refractory SBBO (use of 3 or more antimicrobial agents). Diagnosis of SBBO was based on clinical symptoms. Statistical testing completed using T-test, Chi square and logistic regression. Results: 35 of 102 patients followed by our (IRP) developed SBBO (34%) and 16 (16%) had refractory SBBO. Children with SBBO had an older gestational age (34.8 vs 32.3 weeks, p=0.01) and higher birth weight (2345 vs 1843g, p=0.001). Those with gastroschisis were more likely to develop SBBO (40.0 vs 19.4%, p=0.025). The development of SBBO was more likely in those with shorter percentage residual small bowel (SB) (45.4 vs 66.5%, p=0.004). Those with SBBO were more likely to have had a serial transverse enteroplasty (STEP) (22.9 vs 3.0%, p=0.004). Patients with SBBO were less likely to wean from parenteral nutrition (PN) (51.4 vs 85.1%, p < 0.0001). Similar to those with SBBO, refractory SBBO patients had a higher birth weight (2557 vs 1903g, p=0.007) and were likely to have gastroschisis (50.0 vs 22.1%, p=0.020). Refractory SBBO patients had shorter percentage small and large bowel remaining (23.2 vs 65.9%, p < 0.0001 and 60.6 vs 79.4%, p=0.03), more likely to have had a STEP procedure (50.0 vs 2.3%, p < 0.0001) and less likely to wean from PN (37.5 vs 80.2%, p=0.001). Logistic regression for development of SBBO demonstrated that longer small bowel residual was protective (p=0.001, OR 0.95; CI 0.93-0.99) and IF category (SBS) was as risk factor (p=0.001, OR 0.04; CI 0.01-0.27). The presence of an ileocecal valve (ICV), stoma and method of delivery (vaginal vs cesarian section) was not significant. Conclusion: SBBO has management challenges in PIF. A longer SB remnant was protective against the development of SBBO. Patients with SBBO were more likely to have a diagnosis of SBS and remain PN dependent. The presence of the ileocecal valve, stoma or method of delivery did not predict development of SBBO in our cohort.

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)0.004
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransplantationSame topicClinical Nutrition and GastroenterologyFrench-language works237,207