MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2789466134 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwy009.309

A309 EFFECT OF MIXED LIPID, ω-3 FISH OIL AND ω-6 SOYBEAN OIL PARENTERAL LIPID EMULSIONS ON LIVER DISEASE, HEPATIC LIPID AND PHYTOSTEROL COMPOSITION IN NEONATAL PIGLETS.

2018· article· en· W2789466134 on OpenAlexaff
Daniela Migliarese Isaac, Abeer Salman Alzaben, Vera C. Mazurak, Jason Yap, Pamela R. Wizzard, P. N. Nation, Yuan Zhao, Jonathan M. Curtis, Consolato Sergi, P Wales, Diana R. Mager, Justine Turner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicFatty Acid Research and Health
Canadian institutionsStollery Children's HospitalHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFish oilCholestasisTriglycerideSoybean oilInternal medicineBile acidHistologyComposition (language)ChemistryEndocrinologyBiologyCholesterolBiochemistryMedicineFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Determining the optimal lipid emulsion in parenteral nutrition (PN) for pediatric intestinal failure (PIF) patients remains an important clinical question given the risk of PN associated liver disease (PNALD). Using a neonatal piglet model, this study compared mixed lipid (ML; ω-6:ω-3 fatty acid [FA] 2.5:1), ω-3 fish oil (FO; ω-6:ω-3 FA 1:8), and ω-6 soybean oil (SO; ω-6:ω-3 FA 7:1) emulsions for the following markers of PNALD: i) hepatic histology, neutral lipid (NL), FA and phytosterol (PS) composition, and ii) biochemical cholestasis. Neonatal piglets received iso-nitrogenous PN with variation in the dose (5=5g/kg/d or 10=10g/kg/d) and type of lipid provided: SO5 (n=5), SO10 (n=5), FO5 (n=5), and ML10 (n=5). Biochemical evidence of cholestasis was assessed by measuring bile flow, γ-glutamyl transpeptidase (GGT), bile acids (BA) and total bilirubin (TB). Liver tissue was assessed on day 14 of PN for: histology, NL accumulation using Oil Red O (ORO) staining, hepatic FA composition in triglyceride (TG) fraction, and PS composition. Data were expressed as mean ± standard deviation. Chi-square was used for categorical variables, and one-way Anova for continuous variables. TB was significantly higher (p<0.02) and bile flow significantly lower (p<0.001) in SO groups versus (vs) FO5 and ML10. Serum BA were 3-fold higher in SO vs FO5 and ML10 piglets (p=0.04). There were no differences in GGT (p=0.19), NL accumulation (p=0.3), or overall liver histology scores (p=0.16) between groups; however, only SO piglets showed cholestasis on histology (SO10 n=2, SO5 n=1). Total FA in the TG fraction was higher in SO vs FO5 and ML10 groups (p<0.03), with SO10 levels 4-fold greater than FO5 (p=0.02). Eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid were higher in FO5 and ML10 vs SO piglets (p<0.001), with no significant differences between ML10 and FO5. The ω-6/ω-3 FA ratio was significantly higher in SO groups (SO5 9.0 ± 0.7, SO10 8.7 ± 1.8, p<0.0001), but not different between ML10 and FO5 (1.5 ± 0.3 vs 0.4 ± 0.3, p=0.32). FO5 and ML10 were markedly lower in campesterol than SO (p<0.0001). Stigmasterol and β-sitosterol were not detected in FO5, but were significantly higher in SO than ML10 (p<0.0001). β-sitostanol was only detected in the SO10 group. ML and FO lipid emulsions were associated with reduced cholestasis and lower hepatic lipid and PS accumulation. Alterations in hepatic lipid and PS composition in piglets given SO emulsions may contribute to PNALD. Considering typical infant diets, ML provided a more balanced ω-6/ω-3 hepatic FA composition than SO and FO. These results provide guidance on lipid selection for PIF patients receiving PN. CIHRLiver Foundation Research Grant; Industry Partner Fresenius Kabi (provision of parenteral nutrition); and Saudi Cultural Bureau, Ministry of Education, Saudi Arabia (personal training funding for Abeer Alzaben).

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.237 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology→Same topicFatty Acid Research and Health→French-language works237,207→