Enhancing Nutrition Support for Esophageal Cancer Patients: Understanding Factors Influencing Feeding Tube Utilization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: We sought to identify factors that can predict esophageal cancer (EC) patients at high risk of requiring feeding tube insertion. Methods: A retrospective cohort review was conducted, including all patients diagnosed with EC at our cancer center from 2013 to 2018. Multivariate logistic regression was performed comparing the group that required a reactive feeding tube insertion to those who did not require any feeding tube insertion to identify risk factors. Results: A total of 350 patients were included in the study, and 132/350 (38%) patients received a feeding tube. 50 out of 132 (38%) patients had feeding tube inserted reactively. Severe dysphagia (OR 19.9, p < 0.001) at diagnosis and decision to undergo chemotherapy (OR 2.8, p = 0.008) appeared to be predictors for reactive feeding tube insertion. The reactive insertion group had a 7% higher rate of complications relating to feeding tube. Conclusion: Severe dysphagia at diagnosis and undergoing chemotherapy were identified as risk factors for requiring a feeding tube. Ultimately, the aim is to create a predictive tool that utilizes these risks factors to accurate identify high-risk patients who may benefit from prophylactic feeding tube insertion.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".