MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2991942491 · doi:10.1007/s00520-019-05145-w

Enteral and parenteral nutrition in cancer patients, a comparison of complication rates: an updated systematic review and (cumulative) meta-analysis

2019· review· en· W2991942491 on OpenAlexaff
Ronald Chow, Éduardo Bruera, Jann Arends, Declan Walsh, Florian Strasser, Elisabeth Isenring, Egidio Del Fabbro, Alex Molassiotis, Monica Krishnan, Leonard Chiu, Nicholas Chiu, Stephanie Chan, Tian Tang, Henry Lam, Michael Lock, Carlo DeAngelis

Bibliographic record

VenueSupportive Care in Cancer · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoLondon Health Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisParenteral nutritionClinical endpointRandomized controlled trialSystematic reviewSubgroup analysisEnteral administrationMEDLINEPublication biasInternal medicineIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.028
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.264
GPT teacher head0.529
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations39
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueSupportive Care in CancerSame topicNutrition and Health in AgingFrench-language works237,207