Energy and Protein Intake After Return Home in Colorectal Surgery Patients With an Enhanced Recovery Program: A Prospective Observational Study
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
BACKGROUND: In patients scheduled for colorectal surgery with an enhanced recovery program (ERP), feeding after returning home has been insufficiently investigated. The aim of this study was to measure energy and protein intake during the first month at home. METHODS: Seventy adult patients scheduled for colorectal surgery with ERP were included. Calorie and protein intakes were calculated, and body weight was measured preoperatively and 3, 7, 15, and 30 days after discharge home. Data are mean ± SD or median (interquartile range). RESULTS: , and colon/rectum of 56/14. The duration of hospitalization was 3 (2-5) days. Calorie and protein intakes (21.9 [17.7-28.6] kilocalorie per kilogram of ideal body weight [kcal/kg IBW] and 0.81 [0.61-1.14] g/kg IBW) were significantly reduced (P < .01) by 15% on day 3, compared with preoperative values, and then increased gradually to reach preoperative values after 1 month. Almost 50% of the patients failed to reach the calorie intake target of 25 kcal/kg IBW, and almost no patient reached the protein intake target of 1.5 g/kg IBW 30 days after discharge home. Weight loss after 30 days at home remained at -1.8 ± 2.7 kg. CONCLUSIONS: Colorectal surgery, even in an ERP, is associated with energy and protein intake below the targets recommended for the rehabilitation phase and results in weight loss. Whether nutrition counseling and prolonged administration of protein-enriched oral supplements could accelerate weight gain needs to be explored.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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