Delivery of a nutritional prescription by enteral tube feeding in children with chronic kidney disease stages 2–5 and on dialysis—clinical practice recommendations from the Pediatric Renal Nutrition Taskforce
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The nutritional prescription (whether in the form of food or liquid formulas) may be taken orally when a child has the capacity for spontaneous intake by mouth, but may need to be administered partially or completely by nasogastric tube or gastrostomy device ("enteral tube feeding"). The relative use of each of these methods varies both within and between countries. The Pediatric Renal Nutrition Taskforce (PRNT), an international team of pediatric renal dietitians and pediatric nephrologists, has developed clinical practice recommendations (CPRs) based on evidence where available, or on the expert opinion of the Taskforce members, using a Delphi process to seek consensus from the wider community of experts in the field. We present CPRs for delivery of the nutritional prescription via enteral tube feeding to children with chronic kidney disease stages 2-5 and on dialysis. We address the types of enteral feeding tubes, when they should be used, placement techniques, recommendations and contraindications for their use, and evidence for their effects on growth parameters. Statements with a low grade of evidence, or based on opinion, must be considered and adapted for the individual patient by the treating physician and dietitian according to their clinical judgement. Research recommendations have been suggested. The CPRs will be regularly audited and updated by the PRNT.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it