Nutritional Considerations in Pediatric Pancreatitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Wide variations exist in how physicians manage the nutritional aspects of children affected by acute pancreatitis (AP), acute recurrent pancreatitis (ARP), and chronic (CP) pancreatitis. Better consensus for optimal management is needed. METHODS: This consensus statement on nutrition in pediatric pancreatic diseases was developed through a joint ESPGHAN-NASPGHAN working group that performed an evidence-based search of the literature on nutrition in AP, ARP, and CP with a focus on pediatrics. The literature was summarized, quality of evidence reviewed, and expert recommendations developed. The authorship met to discuss the evidence and statements. Voting on recommendations occurred over 2 rounds based on feedback. A consensus of at least 75% was required to approve a recommendation. Areas requiring further research were identified. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The literature on nutrition in pediatric pancreatitis is limited. Children with mild AP benefit from starting an early nutritional regimen in the course of the attack. Early nutrition should be attempted in severe AP when possible; enteral nutrition is preferred over parenteral nutrition. Children with ARP are likely to tolerate and benefit from a regular diet. Children with CP need ongoing assessment for growth and nutritional deficiencies, exocrine and endocrine insufficiencies. CONCLUSIONS: This document presents the first authoritative recommendations on nutritional considerations in pediatric pancreatitis. Future research should address the gaps in knowledge particularly relating to optimal nutrition for AP in children, role of diet or dietary supplements on recurrent attacks of pancreatitis and pain episodes, monitoring practices to detect early growth and nutritional deficiencies in CP and identifying risk factors that predispose children to these deficiencies.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".