MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

30: Predicting Enteral Autonomy in Short Bowel Syndrome in a Large Multicenter Multinational Cohort

2023· article· en· W4382055216 on OpenAlexaff
Natascha Silva Sandy, Amin J. Roberts, Paul W. Wales, Ricardo Katsuya Toma, Christina Belza, Harween Dogra, Helen Evans, Daniela Gattini, Jonathan Hind, David F. Mercer, Jill M. Povondra, Justine Turner, Jason Yap, Theodoric Wong, Yaron Avitzur

Bibliographic record

VenueTransplantation · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicClinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineEnteral administrationCohortShort bowel syndromeUnivariate analysisGastroenterologyProportional hazards modelEtiologyRetrospective cohort studyParenteral nutritionMultivariate analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Previous studies that evaluated predictors of Enteral Autonomy (EA) in pediatric Short Bowel Syndrome (SBS) have conflicting results. Many were frequently limited by small sample size, single-center design, and the use of historical cohorts. The aim of this study was to assess predictors of EA in pediatric SBS in a large cohort of patients from six pediatric intestinal rehabilitation programs. Methods: A multi-institutional retrospective cohort study of infants <12 months with SBS (N=367). The cohort was stratified according to the achievement of EA vs. parenteral nutrition (PN) dependency. Statistical testing included a two-sample t-test, Chi-Square, log-rank for univariate analysis, and Cox Proportional Hazards regression for multivariable analysis. To explore the impact of residual small bowel (SB) and large bowel (LB) length on EA, a scatterplot of percent residual bowel (adjusted for age) divided patients into four anatomical quadrants – ≥ 50% vs. <50% of LB and SB. A Kaplan–Meier curve was created based on these anatomical strata. A time-to-event analysis was also performed comparing EA according to etiology (NEC vs. other etiologies). Results: EA was achieved in 229 patients (62.3%). The mean time to achieve EA was 420 days, while the mean time of follow-up in the PN-dependent group was 1591 days. In the univariate analysis, patients who remained PN dependent were more likely to have shorter percent residual small bowel (30.3 vs 54.4%; p<0.0001) and residual colon length (66.8 vs 87.9%; p<0.001), and less likely to have an ileocecal valve (ICV, 26 vs 68%; p<0.001). In the multivariable analysis, percentage of the residual colon (HR=1.02; 95% CI 1.01–1.02) and small bowel (HR= 1.01; 95% CI 1.01–1.02) length, and presence of ICV (HR= 2.02; 95% CI 1.41–2.88) were positively associated with EA, while the presence of a stoma at the time of shortest bowel length measurement was a negative predictor of EA (HR= 0.72; 95% CI 0.52–1.00). The time-to-event analysis of the 4 anatomical strata revealed that: 80.4% of infants with ≥ 50% SB and LB weaned from PN, after a median time of 209 days; 62.5% with ≥ 50% SB and<50% LB weaned off PN, after a median time of 397 days; 58.3% of infants with < 50% SB and ≥ 50% LB weaned off PN after a longer median time of 1192 days, while only 25.9% of children with < 50% SB and LB weaned from PN (Log-rank p<0.001) (Figure 1). Diagnosis of NEC was not associated with a better achievement of EA (NEC vs. other SBS etiologies (Log-rank p = 0.33) (Figure 2).Conclusions: Overall 62% of infants with IF secondary to SBS achieved EA. Residual small and large bowel length plays a major role in the achievement and duration of time to EA. A colon length of >50% can compensate for the loss of small bowel <50% and account for a similar EA rate as in children with residual SB>50%. Surgical preservation of maximal small and large bowel length early in life is critical for a favorable prognosis in pediatric SBS.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransplantationSame topicClinical Nutrition and GastroenterologyFrench-language works237,207