Factors affecting antidepressant use by patients requiring home parenteral nutrition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Home parenteral nutrition (HPN) is a life-saving therapy for patients with chronic intestinal failure but can be associated with a degree of psychological distress. The factors associated with the need for antidepressants (ADs) in this cohort have not yet been described. METHODS: The study involved prospective data collection from patients attending an HPN clinic at a national intestinal failure referral center. Patients requiring HPN as a result of active malignancy were excluded. Patients were divided in 2 groups according to AD usage; demographic, anthropometric, socioeconomic characteristics, and intravenous supplementation (IVS) regimens were compared between groups. RESULTS: A total of 184 patients were recruited between July 2018 and April 2019, with an overall prevalence of AD use of 41.7% (70/168 patients). Daily mean IVS volume was significantly higher among patients taking AD ("AD" group; 2125.48 ± 991.8 ml/day, "no-AD" group; 1828.54 ± 847.0 ml/day, P = .039), with the proportion of patients needing high-volume IVS (≥3000 ml/day) being 3 times higher in the AD group (20.0%(14/70 patients) vs 6.1% (6/98 patients), P = .006). The average energy IVS infusion per day was similar between the groups. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to demonstrate that AD use correlates with higher IVS volume rather than energy requirements in HPN patients, suggesting that high IVS volume requirements may be better associated with the patient's disease burden. Early and tailored mental health intervention may be beneficial in those with high IVS volume requirements.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".