Use of fiber-containing enteral formula in pediatric clinical practice: an expert opinion review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Children who require enteral nutrition often report gastrointestinal symptoms. There is a growing interest in nutrition formulas that meet nutritional requirements and also maintain gut ecology and function. Fiber-containing enteral formulas can improve bowel function, promote the growth of healthy gut microbiota, and improve immune homeostasis. Nonetheless, guidance in clinical practice is lacking. AREAS COVERED: This expert opinion article summarizes the available literature and collects the opinion of eight experts on the importance and use of fiber-containing enteral formulas in pediatrics. The present review was supported by a bibliographical literature search on Medline via PubMed to collect the most relevant articles. EXPERT OPINION: The current evidence supports using fibers in enteral formulas as first-line nutrition therapy. Dietary fibers should be considered for all patients receiving enteral nutrition and can be slowly introduced from six months of age. Fiber properties that define the functional/physiological properties of the fiber must be considered. Clinicians should balance the dose of fiber with tolerability and feasibility. Introducing fiber-containing enteral formulas should be considered when initiating tube feeding. Dietary fiber should be introduced gradually, especially in fiber-naïve children, with an individualized symptom-based approach. Patients should continue with the fiber-containing enteral formulas they tolerate best.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".