Intravenous Carnitine Administration in Addition to Parenteral Nutrition With Lipid Emulsion May Decrease the Inflammatory Reaction in Postoperative Surgical Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A prospective randomized study was performed to investigate the validity of intravenous carnitine administration during postoperative parenteral nutrition (PN) with lipid emulsion. METHODS: Patients undergoing surgery for gastric or colorectal cancer were enrolled in the study and were randomly divided into two groups (n = 8 in each group): 1) group L, who received a peripheral PN (PPN) solution of 7.5% glucose, 30% amino acid, and 20% lipid emulsion; and 2) group LC, who received the same PPN solution, as well as carnitine intravenously. PPN was performed from postoperative day (POD) 1 to POD4. Clinical and laboratory parameters were compared between the two groups; statistical significance was set at P < 0.05. RESULTS: Serum carnitine concentrations were significantly higher in group LC on POD3 (P < 0.01) and POD7 (P = 0.01). Postoperative changes in laboratory parameters and morbidity were comparable between the two groups. However, the decrease in C-reactive protein from POD3 to POD7 was significantly greater in group LC than in group L (P = 0.011). CONCLUSION: The results show that intravenous carnitine administration in addition to PN is safe and may be beneficial for recovery from postoperative inflammatory reactions.
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 | 0.000 | 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".