Blenderized Tube Feeding and Enterostomy Tube Occlusions Among Adults with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis and Primary Lateral Sclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adults with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and primary lateral sclerosis (PLS) may develop swallowing difficulties and elect to receive an enterostomy feeding tube for nutrition support. Blenderized tube feeding (BTF) appeals to those interested in a homemade enteral nutrition option, but there are concerns of feeding tube occlusion and limited research on this potential risk. Therefore, our purpose was to determine the frequency of, and risk factors for, feeding tube occlusions among adults with ALS or PLS who use BTF. For this retrospective study, the electronic medical records of tube-fed adults with ALS or PLS who received outpatient care at a provincial ALS clinic during a two-year period were reviewed (n = 651). There were 97 tube-fed patients identified, of which 20 (21%) used BTF. Average duration of BTF use was 11.25 ± 7.5 months. Seven subjects (35%) used BTF exclusively, while 13 (65%) used a combination of BTF and commercial enteral formula. All received BTF by gastrostomy tube, sized 14 to 24 French. BTF administration methods and compliance with water flush recommendations varied. Despite the perceived risk of feeding tube occlusions with blenderized tube feeding, no occlusions were found to have occurred in this study.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".