Dietitian Involvement Improves Consumption of Oral Nutrition Supplements in Hospitalized Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hospitalized patients are at an increased risk of malnutrition due to multiple factors including, but not limited to, acute and chronic diseases especially those affecting gastrointestinal tract, surgery, appetite, and frequent nil per os while undergoing diagnostic workup. Because of this, guidelines suggest the use of oral nutritional supplements (ONS) in hospitalized patients to reduce the risk of malnutrition and its complications. The current report aims to highlights key findings from a cross-sectional survey of 99 hospitalized patients who were at risk for or diagnosed with malnutrition and prescribed ONS. Data regarding ONS prescriber information as well as number ordered and consumed were collected. Of the 2.4 ± 1.5 supplements ordered per person each day, only 1.3 ± 1.1 were consumed, and there was 48% wastage of prescribed ONS. However, dietitian involvement was associated with significant reduction in wastage. Given the need and benefit, it is imperative for the nutrition community to further explore best practices to improve ONS consumption.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".