MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3007029762 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwz047.133

A134 RATES OF PARENTERAL NUTRITION-ASSOCIATED CHOLESTASIS/LIVER DISEASE AND GROWTH PRE- AND POST-SMOFLIPID INTRODUCTION IN NEONATES AND INFANTS WITH INTESTINAL FAILURE

2020· article· en· W3007029762 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nicole Tyminski, Alexandra Hudson, Justine Turner, Jason A. Silverman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicClinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
Canadian institutionsStollery Children's HospitalUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineParenteral nutritionCholestasisIntestinal failureGastroenterologyLiver diseaseInternal medicineFish oilNeonatal cholestasisBilirubinBile acidPediatricsSurgeryLiver transplantationTransplantationBiliary atresiaBiologyFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Parenteral nutrition (PN) is essential for survival in infants with intestinal failure (IF). PN-associated cholestasis (PNAC) and liver disease (PNALD) are life-threatening complications of long-term PN use. SMOFlipid (soybean oil, medium-chain triglycerides, olive oil, and fish oil) has recently been approved as an off-label alternative to the conventional soy-based lipid emulsion (Intralipid). It is thought to have anti-cholestatic properties due to its more diverse lipid composition. Due to its’ recent approval in Canada (2013) and the USA (2016), data remains sparse. Aims We aim to determine if infants with IF receiving SMOFlipid had significantly lower rates of PNAC and improved growth compared to those receiving Intralipid. Methods All patients (≤1 year old at start of PN therapy) who received PN of any duration at two tertiary pediatric hospitals in Edmonton (2010–2018) were identified from the shared pharmacy database. Those with IF who received one type of PN continuously for ≥6 weeks total were included. Individuals with an initial serum conjugated bilirubin >50 µmol/L and/or who had PN interruptions >5 days were excluded. Data on liver parameters, growth, and complications were collected. Non-parametric tests (Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables and χ2 test for categorical variables) were used to compare PNAC/PNALD (serum conjugated bilirubin >34umol/L during PN) and growth (weight/length/head circumference z-scores) between SMOFlipid and Intralipid. Results 1777 patients were reviewed; 40 infants (55% male), median age 4 weeks (range 0–48 weeks) at the time of PN initiation, met the inclusion criteria. Reasons for exclusion (n=1737) were receiving PN <6 weeks total (n=1485), duplicate patients (n=154), receiving multiple types of PN with each less than 6 weeks total (n=62), an initial serum conjugated bilirubin >50umol/L (n=21), more than 5 consecutive days off of PN (n=12), and older than 1 year old at time of PN initiation (n=3). Twenty-one patients (53%) received SMOFlipid, 15 (38%) Intralipid, and 4 (10%) Omegaven for ≥6 weeks. The majority (92%) were in an intensive care unit (neonatal or pediatric). No patients were septic when starting PN. Individuals received PN over a median of 7.9 weeks (range 6–27 weeks). Conclusions As expected, neonatal onset intestinal failure is rare in Edmonton. In our tertiary pediatric institutions, 2010–2018, SMOFLipid was the predominant lipid choice for infants with intestinal failure, followed by Intralipid. Omegaven was used rarely. This dataset will now allow us to compare the rates of PNAC at six weeks post-PN initiation and differences in growth between infants with IF receiving SMOFlipid versus the traditional Intralipid in our Canadian setting. Analysis is currently underway. Funding Agencies Women and Children’s Health Research Institute (WCHRI) at the University of Alberta

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.222 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology→Same topicClinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology→French-language works237,207→