MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3049630073

Tolerance and Safety of Energy-Dense Enteral Formulae for Young Children

2003· article· en· W3049630073 on OpenAlexaff
John Van Aerde, Pedro Pujante, Wayne Lam, A. Mulvaney, S. Aubry, J. Decker Butzner, Marina Castro, Roberta Gabriela Oliveira Gatti, David Hopkins, Robert M. Issenman, Richard Meyers, E. Morejón, J. M. Moreno, Deborah L. O’Connor, Caio César Pedron, Luis Peña Quintana, Gail M. Comer

Bibliographic record

VenueAcceda (Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria) · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChild Nutrition and Feeding Issues
Canadian institutionsStollery Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineParenteral nutritionEnteral administrationEnergy requirementAdverse effectAnimal sciencePediatricsSurgeryInternal medicineMathematicsStatistics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The safety and tolerance of energy-dense enteral pediatric formulae were evaluated and compared with a standard formula. Children aged 1-6 years requiring tube feedings to provide ≥ 75% of their daily estimated energy needs for 21 days were evaluated in this phase III, randomized, open-label, multicenter study. Subjects received a control formula, Pediasure® (C; 1.0 kcal/mL) or an experimental formula similar in nutrient composition but higher in caloric density (1.5 kcal/mL) with or without fiber (EF and E, respectively). Subjects (n=94) returned for 3 weekly visits. Gastrointestinal parameters improved (p<0.05) in all groups. Energy intake was comparable among groups, but was achieved with lower (p<0.0001) volumes in E and EF relative to C. Weight gain was greater (p<0.01) in E versus C. Adverse event reporting was similar among groups. Energy dense formulae are an option for children with fluid restrictions or increased energy or fiber needs without compromising safety or tolerance.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.179
Threshold uncertainty score0.703

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations8
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcceda (Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria)Same topicChild Nutrition and Feeding IssuesFrench-language works237,207