Parenteral Versus Enteral Nutrition on Perioperative Cognitive Function in Anesthesia Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluated the impact of enteral nutrition versus parenteral nutrition on perioperative cognitive function and related outcomes in patients undergoing different surgeries. From April to December 2023, 240 patients in Shanghai, China, undergoing elective surgery were randomly assigned to receive either enteral or parenteral nutrition postoperatively. This cross-sectional study represented a wide range of clinical applications and surgical procedures. Outcomes, including longterm hospital stays, complication rates, dietary compliance, 30-day readmission rates, patient satisfaction, inflammatory markers, immunological response, stress response, and perioperative cognitive function, measured by Mini-Mental State Examination and Montreal Cognitive Assessment scores, were investigated in this study. Compared to patients in the parenteral nutrition group, those in the enteral nutrition group exhibited considerably shorter hospital stays (8.7 ± 1.9 days versus 9.4 ± 2.0 days, P < 0.05), lower complication rates (22% versus 30%, P < 0.05), and lower 30-day readmission rates (10% versus 15%, P < 0.05). The enteral nutrition group exhibited higher patient satisfaction rates (9.1 ± 2.1 versus 8.2 ± 1.6, P < 0.05). Additionally, enteral nutrition was linked to better immunological and inflammatory profiles and lower stress marker levels (cortisol, lymphocyte count, and C-reactive protein). After various surgical procedures, enteral nutrition recipients achieved higher scores on postoperative cognitive tests. Compared to parenteral nutrition, enteral nutrition provides better results regarding hospital stay, complication rate, readmission rate, patient satisfaction, and cognitive function. These results support the preferential use of enteral nutrition in postoperative treatment and contribute to the growing evidence demonstrating the physiological advantages of enteral nutrition and its beneficial effects on postoperative recovery and cognitive preservation.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".