Survival of Patients With Short‐Bowel Syndrome on Home Parenteral Nutrition: A Prospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Survival of patients with short-bowel syndrome (SBS) receiving home parenteral nutrition (HPN) and associated factors have not been reported recently in North America. The objective of this study was to determine the long-term survival of adult patients with SBS as the primary indication for HPN and assess factors that may affect survival by using the Canadian HPN Registry. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data extracted from the HPN registry, prior to approval of teduglutide in Canada. Using only incident cases, survival probabilities were estimated by using the Kaplan-Meier method for both full-cohort and nonmalignant SBS. Log-rank test was also used to test the differences in survival distributions between subgroups in the univariate analysis. To identify potential variables that are affecting survival distribution of patients for the multivariable analysis, Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator and stepwise selection procedure were used. RESULTS: There were 321 patients with a known duration receiving HPN (total, 2287 years), of whom 218 were entered into the registry within 1 year of initiation of HPN. Of 218 incident cases, 22 had active malignancy, along with SBS, and their survival time was significantly lower than those with nonmalignant SBS (P-value < .0001). The 5-year survival of nonmalignant-SBS patients was 81.9%. In this subgroup, there was no significant association between patients' survival and known intestinal anatomy, age, or sex. CONCLUSION: Patients with nonmalignant SBS who receive HPN have a 5-year survival of >80%. Known intestinal anatomical factors did not affect survival.
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".