Effects of Early Versus Delayed Feeding in Patients With Acute Pancreatitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to summarize the optimal strategy for early feeding in patients with acute pancreatitis. METHODS: The search was undertaken in electronic databases, which compared early with delayed feeding in acute pancreatitis. The primary outcome was the length of hospital stay (LOHS). The second outcomes were intolerance of refeeding, mortality, and total cost of each patient. This meta-analysis followed the "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses" guideline. Research is registered by PROSPERO, CRD42020192133. RESULTS: A total of 20 trials involving 2168 patients were included, randomly assigned to the early feeding group (N = 1033) and delayed feeding group (N = 1135). The LOHS was significantly lower in the early feeding group than the delayed feeding group (mean difference: -2.35, 95% CI: -2.89 to -1.80; P < 0.0001), no matter the mild or severe subgroup ( Pint = 0.69). The secondary outcome of feeding intolerance and mortality were no significant difference (risk ratio: 0.96, 0.40 to 2.16, P = 0.87 and 0.91, 0.57 to 1.46, P = 0.69; respectively). Moreover, the hospitalization cost was significantly less in the early feeding group, resulting in an average savings of 50%. In patients with severe pancreatitis, early feeding after 24 hours may be beneficial ( Pint = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Early oral feeding can significantly reduce the LOHS and hospitalization costs in patients with acute pancreatitis without increasing feeding intolerance or mortality. In patients with severe pancreatitis, early feeding after 24 hours may be beneficial.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".