MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4320491749 · doi:10.3390/nu15040903

Nutritional Strategies to Manage Malnutrition and Sarcopenia following Liver Transplantation: A Narrative Review

2023· review· en· W4320491749 on OpenAlexafffund
Amal Trigui, Christopher F. Rose, Chantal Bémeur

Bibliographic record

VenueNutrients · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsSarcopeniaMalnutritionLiver transplantationMedicineIntensive care medicineNarrative reviewTransplantationNarrativeGerontologyBioinformaticsInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Persisting or newly developed malnutrition and sarcopenia after liver transplant (LT) are correlated with adverse health outcomes. This narrative review aims to examine the literature regarding nutrition strategies to manage malnutrition and sarcopenia after LT. The secondary aims are to provide an overview of the effect of nutrition strategies on the incidence of infections, hospital length of stay (LOS), acute cellular rejection (ACR), and mortality after LT. Four databases were searched. A total of 25 studies, mostly of mid-high quality, were included. Six studies found a beneficial effect on nutritional parameters using branched-chain amino acids (BCAA), immunomodulating diet (IMD), or enteral nutrition (EN) whereas two studies using beta-hydroxy-beta-methylbutyrate (HMB) found a beneficial effect on muscle mass and function. Fourteen studies using pre- or pro-biotics, IMD, and EN were effective in lowering infection and six studies using IMD, BCAA or HMB reported reduced hospital LOS. Finally, four studies using HMB and vitamin D were effective in reducing ACR and one study reported reduced mortality using vitamin D after LT. In conclusion, nutritional intervention after LT has different beneficial effects on malnutrition, sarcopenia, and other advert outcomes. Additional large and well-constructed RCTs using validated tools to assess nutritional status and sarcopenia are warranted to ensure more robust conclusions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.114
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.321 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNutrientsSame topicNutrition and Health in AgingFrench-language works237,207