Effects of parenteral nutrition of ω-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid, arginine and glutamine on cellular immune status of patients following liver cancer surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To study the effects of parenteral nutrition (TPN), ω-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA), Larginine (Arg), and glutamine on cellular immunity of patients who have done the liver cancer (LC) surgery.Methods: Seventy-five (75) LC patients were randomly divided into 5 groups (A - E; 15 cases each), group A, B, C, D and E, in which patients were treated with TPN, TPN + fish oil, TPN + Arg, TPN + glutamine, and TPN + ω-3 PUFA + Arg + glutamine, respectively. Before and after surgery, CD3 +, CD4 + and CD8 + were measured by antibody-sensitized erythrocyte rosette test, and IL-6, IL-10 and TNF-a were assayed with double-antibody sandwich enzyme-linked immunoassay (DAS-ELISA). IgA and IgM were measured nephelometrically.Results: The levels of CD3 +, CD4 + and CD8 + in group A showed no obvious change after surgery (p > 0.05). However, CD3 + and CD4 + increased in groups B, C and D, while CD8 + decreased in group E (p < 0.05). IL-6 in group E was lower than that in any of the other four groups (p < 0.05). IL-10 in group A was lower than that in groups B, C and D, but lower than in group E (p < 0.05). The levels of TNF-a in groups B and C were lower than those in group A, but higher than that in group E (p < 0.05) but lower than in group D. IgA in group E was higher than in the other groups (p < 0.05), while IgM level in group E was lower than in groups A, B and C (p < 0.05).Conclusion: Immunosuppressive status and cellular immunity of patients after liver cancer surgery may be improved by a combination therapy of TPN, ω-3 PUFAs, Arg and glutamine.Keywords: Polyunsaturated fatty acid, Arginine, Glutamine, Parenteral nutrition, Hepatoma, Cellular immunity
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".