Nutritional indicators among patients with liver transplantation: A cross sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and objective: The trouble of nutritional state is considered as a prophet of morbidity and mortality in patients with advanced liver disease. The severity of nutritional disorder increases with diminished liver function. The aim of this study was to explore the nutritional indicators among patients with liver transplantation patients in Egypt.Methods: Outlined is a descriptive cross-sectional research design using a convenience sampling of 210 patients following liver transplantation from the outpatient of transplantation centre the Mansura university Hospital, Wady el-Nile Hospital, International Military Medical centre, Almady Military Hospital. Data were collected using an adapted four parts tool that gathered sociodemographic data of patients; data about patient dietary habits and dietary balance and an assessment of patients physical and anthropometric measurements as nutritional predictor’s.Results: There is a highly significant relation between nutritional status, gender and sociodemographic characteristics among patients with liver transplantation. As well, educational levels and occupation point to difference between physical and nutritional indicators parameter and sociodemographic characteristics. As well, high body mass indicators (BMI) vary between physical and nutritional indicator parameters.Conclusions: There are noticeable needs for instructional schemes to be offered on simple media to increase awareness of patient’s nutritional requirements post transplantation. Implications for Nursing and Health policy: There is a growing demand for strategies and programs that take into consideration all the needs of liver transplantation patients. Efforts should be carried out to design and implement interventions that suit the patients following liver transplantation using simple media and suitable language.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".