Correlation Analysis of Hypercalcemia in Patients Treated with Total Parenteral Nutrition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Total parenteral nutrition treatment is very important for maintain patient’s life, but it is complex to understand the correlation between the medical treatment and hypercalcemia. This paper explored the incidence and correlation of hypercalcemia in patients receiving total parenteral nutrition and its related factors. 280 representative patients were selected from one hospital in Guangdong Province, China, as the research objects. Collect the patient’s basic attributes, nutritional status before total parenteral nutrition and total parenteral nutrition with the method of medical history retrospective, and use multiple logistic regression to explore important correlations that affect the occurrence of hypercalcemia in hospitalized patients receiving total parenteral nutrition factor. The results showed the percentage of patients with treatment days greater than 14 days that developed hypercalcemia was 7.5% which is significantly related to the occurrence of hypercalcemia. The probability of hypercalcemia in patients with total parenteral nutrition treatment for more than 14 days is higher than that of patients with treatment for less than or equal to 14 days. This study can prevent potentially harmful complications that may be caused by total parenteral nutrition and provide safer health quality.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".