Intestinal Failure‐Associated Liver Disease and Growth Pre‐ and Post‐Transition to a Composite Lipid Emulsion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Infants with intestinal failure have an increased risk of intestinal failure-associated liver disease (IFALD). Composite intravenous lipid emulsion (ILE) may reduce the risk of cholestasis. The primary outcome was to compare IFALD rates in infants with intestinal failure, between those receiving a composite ILE versus soybean oil ILE. The secondary outcome compared growth between these 2 groups. METHODS: At our 2 tertiary neonatal/pediatric hospitals, we identified all patients (≤1 year old) who received ≥6 weeks parenteral nutrition (PN) from 2010 to 2018. Data included liver and growth parameters. IFALD was defined as serum conjugated bilirubin (CB) >33 µmol/L (≥2 mg/dL). Nonparametric tests were used for all comparisons. RESULTS: Fifty infants (35 composite ILE, 15 soybean oil ILE) were included. Those on composite ILE received PN for longer (10.1 vs 7.6 weeks; P = 0.001) and had higher baseline CB (29 vs 6.5 μmol/L; P = 0.001). No differences were found by 6 weeks (14.5 vs 5 μmol/L; P = 0.54) and by PN cessation (4 vs 4 μmol/L; P = 0.33). The proportion of patients with IFALD decreased from 54% to 20% for composite ILE, while stable given soybean oil ILE (7%). There were no differences in weight, length, or head circumference z scores ( P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In our institutions, over 8 years, chronic intestinal failure was rare. Composite ILE was the predominant lipid choice for infants who needed longer courses of PN or had developed cholestasis. Despite longer PN duration, and higher baseline CB, overall rates of IFALD decreased with composite ILE. Regardless of parenteral lipid used, there were no differences in growth.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".