Composite lipid emulsion use and essential fatty acid deficiency in pediatric patients with intestinal failure with high parenteral nutrition dependence: A retrospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Reports of essential fatty acid deficiency (EFAD) in patients receiving parenteral nutrition (PN) and a composite lipid (mixed oil intravenous lipid emulsion [MO ILE]) are predominantly when managed by lipid restriction. The objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of EFAD in patients with intestinal failure (IF) who are PN dependent without lipid restriction. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated patients, ages 0-17 years, followed by our intestinal rehabilitation program between November 2020 and June 2021 with PN dependency index (PNDI) of >80% on a MO ILE. Demographic data, PN composition, PN days, growth, and plasma fatty acid profile were collected. A plasma triene-tetraene (T:T) ratio >0.2 indicated EFAD. Summary statistics and Wilcoxon rank sum test evaluated to compare between PNDI category and ILE administration (grams/kilograms/day). P < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients (median age, 4.1 years [interquartile range (IQR) = 2.4-9.6]) were included. The median duration of PN was 1367 days (IQR = 824-3195). Sixteen patients had a PNDI of 80%-120% (61.5%). Fat intake for the group was 1.7 g/kg/day (IQR = 1.3-2.0). The median T:T ratio was 0.1 (IQR = 0.1-0.2) with no values >0.2. Linoleic and arachidonic acid were low in 85% and 19% of patients, respectively; however, Mead acid was normal in all patients. CONCLUSION: This report is the largest to date on the EFA status of patients with IF on PN. These results suggest that, in the absence of lipid restriction, EFAD is not a concern when using MO ILEs in children receiving PN for IF.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".