An Observational Study of Smoflipid vs Intralipid on the Evolution of Intestinal Failure–Associated Liver Disease in Infants With Intestinal Failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background SMOFlipid has a more diverse lipid profile than traditional Intralipid and has become the standard lipid for patients in our intestinal rehabilitation program. Our objective was to compare outcomes in neonates with intestinal failure (IF) who received SMOFlipid against those receiving Intralipid. Methods This was a retrospective cohort study of infants with IF with a minimum follow‐up of 12 months in 2008–2016. Patients were stratified into 2 groups: group 1 received SMOFlipid; group 2 was a historical cohort who received Intralipid. The primary outcome was liver function evaluated using conjugated bilirubin (CB) levels. Statistical analysis included the Mann‐Whitney U and χ2 tests, with an α value < 0.05 considered significant. Approval was obtained from our institutional review board. Results Thirty‐seven patients were evaluated (17 = SMOFlipid, 20 = Intralipid). SMOFlipid patients were less likely to reach CB of 34 (24% vs 55%, P = 0.05), 50 µmol/L (11.8% vs 45%; P = 0.028), and did not require Omegaven (0% vs 30%; P = 0.014). CB level at 3 months after initiation of parenteral nutrition (PN) was lower in patients receiving SMOFlipid (0 vs 36 µmol/L; P = 0.01). Weight z‐scores were improved for patients receiving SMOFlipid at 3 months (−0.932 vs −2.092; P = 0.028) and 6 months (−0.633 vs −1.614; P = 0.018). There were no differences in PN‐supported patients or demographics between the groups. Conclusion Use of SMOFlipid resulted in decreased development of IF‐associated liver disease in patients with IF when assessed using biochemical tests.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".