Nutritional Effects of Surgical and Medical Treatment for Short Bowel Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The choice of treatment options in short bowel syndrome (SBS) is hampered by a lack of comparative studies. This study uses a previously validated juvenile pig model of SBS to compare nontreated controls (C), surgical treatment with either proximal colon interposition (CI) or bowel lengthening (BL), with medical treatment with codeine and cimetidine (M). METHODS: Treatment was initiated 6 weeks after resection of 75% of the small bowel, and animals were followed until sacrifice at week 16. Feed intake and weight gain were monitored throughout; in vivo nutrient absorption, in vitro nutrient transport, sodium-glucose cotransporter activity, and intestinal morphology (gross and microscopic) were examined at the end of treatment. RESULTS: BL and M treatments resulted in improved rates of weight gain; this improvement was associated with improved absorption of dietary fat. The treatments did not affect carbohydrate or protein absorption in vivo. In vitro fatty acid absorption was not increased in any group. Active uptake of glucose was increased in the colon interposition group, but phlorizin binding (reflecting sodium glucose cotransporter activity) did not differ between groups. Gross serosal and microscopic mucosal surface areas increased in all groups; however, there were no significant differences between the treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate that bowel lengthening and medical treatment improved the rate of weight gain in this model of SBS. This appeared to be due to improvement in the absorption of dietary fat, which was not caused by alterations in in vitro uptake or mucosal surface area, suggesting these treatments have their affects by altering motility or intraluminal digestion. These findings suggest that these treatments are worthy of further study in treating patients (primary pediatric) with SBS.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".