Blenderized tube feedings: Practice recommendations from the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prior to the 1970s, blending food and liquids and putting them through an enteral access device (EAD) was the most common form of enteral nutrition (EN). However, in the 1970s, blenderized tube feedings (BTFs) became less popular due to the emergence of modern commercial enteral formulas (CEFs). Recently, a cultural shift toward consuming a natural diet, consisting of whole foods, has led to a resurgence in the use of BTF. The increasing use of BTF in a variety of patient care settings identifies a need for practice recommendations that provide guidance for nutrition professionals and patients. Members of the American Society for Parental and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) Enteral Nutrition Committee identified salient clinical questions concerning BTF, conducted a comprehensive literature search, and subsequently developed practice recommendations pertaining to the use of BTF. This paper was approved by the ASPEN 2022-2023 Board of Directors.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 it