A Retrospective Look at TPN with Pancreatitis: Do Recommendations Match Guidelines? (P12-036-19)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this project was to assess if best practice guidelines for the use of total parenteral nutrition (TPN) in pancreatitis are being followed at a university teaching hospital. This retrospective study was an exploratory analysis of de-identified data pulled from a university teaching hospital clinical data repository and electronic medical records for patients who had a diagnosis of pancreatitis between the years of 2014 and 2018. Variables of interest included diagnosis, reason for initiating TPN, diet order, past medical history, age, gender, and race. Feeding modalities were compared to best practice guidelines for nutrition support initiation in pancreatitis provided by the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN), European Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ESPEN), American Pancreatic Association and the International Association of Pancreatology (IAP/APA), Best Practice in Surgery group at the University of Toronto, and the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG). A total of 57 patients were admitted between 2014 and 2018 with the diagnosis of pancreatitis. Chart reviews of each patient were assessed for an initial nutrition regimen of either enteral nutrition (EN) or TPN. Of the 57 patients started on nutrition support, 12 patients (21%) received a trial of EN prior to starting TPN. After exclusion of eight patients who had a diagnosis of either ileus, small bowel obstruction (SBO) or bowel perforation, there were 37 (65%) patients who were started on TPN initially without an EN trial. Despite best practice guidelines from multiple groups advocating for EN over TPN, it was found that TPN appears to be a first line feeding strategy in the majority of patients admitted with or who developed pancreatitis at this hospital. Development of an interdisciplinary nutrition support team at this hospital is recommended to facilitate adherence to best practices regarding treatment of patients with pancreatitis. Not Applicable.
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".