Intolerance to early oral feeding in enhanced recovery after colorectal surgery: an early red flag?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Enhanced recovery programmes (ERPs) involve early postoperative oral feeding. The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that intolerance to early feeding was associated with a complicated postoperative course. METHOD: A retrospective cohort analysis of the prospective multicentre database developed by the Francophone Group for Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (GRACE) was undertaken. Seventy-one centres in Belgium, France and Switzerland participated in the study. All patients were encouraged to eat within 24 h after surgery. Patients were separated into two groups according to whether early feeding was well tolerated (WT) or poorly tolerated (PT). The primary outcome measure was overall postoperative complications. Secondary outcome measures were unplanned reoperation, early mobilization rate and duration of postoperative hospital stay. RESULTS: Among the cohort of 3034 patients, early feeding was WT in 2614 patients (WT group) and PT in 420 patients (PT group). There were significantly more postoperative complications in the PT group than in the WT group (52.1% vs 17.0%, respectively; P = 0.001), namely more unplanned reoperations, less early mobilization and longer postoperative hospital stay. Multivariate analyses confirmed that PT early feeding was the main and dominant independent factor for postoperative complications [OR 4.47 (95% CI3.49-5.72); P < 0.001], more unplanned reoperations and longer hospital stay. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates a close relationship between intolerance to early feeding and a complicated postoperative course. Whenever this simple very early red flag is observed, discharge should not be planned until postoperative complications have been ruled out.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".