Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this review, topics with scientific strength, topical interest, and controversy were selected. Over the past 50 years, malnutrition has become increasingly recognized as a cause of increased morbidity and mortality in hospital patients. From 1970 to 1980, parenteral nutrition was advocated as the most appropriate form of nutritional therapy for hospital patients. Since then, parenteral nutrition has been replaced by enteral nutrition as the best way of delivering nutrients to hospital patients. The timing of enteral nutrition has been debated. Should it be instituted early, within the first 24 hours? In addition, enteral nutrition containing immune-enhancing nutrients such as arginine, omega-3 fatty acids, glutamine, and nucleotides has been advocated for critically ill patients. The relative merits of enteral versus total parenteral nutrition continue to be debated. Questions about possible complications related to enteral nutrition have been raised. Patients are at risk of nosocomial pneumonia from aspiration and at risk of bowel ischemia because enteral nutrition increases intestinal oxygen consumption. Steroids are often used to treat Crohn disease, but because of undesirable side effects, various techniques have been used to reduce steroid dependency. Enteral nutrition has been advocated as a way of reducing steroid dependency. Finally, enteral nutrition is routinely used to feed demented patients and those in a vegetative state. It is not clear whether this practice alters outcome or quality of life.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.006 |
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".