Association between new insertion of a long‐term enteral feeding tube and mortality in adults admitted to the hospital with aspiration: A retrospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We aimed to describe the association between insertion of a new long-term enteral feeding tube during admission for aspiration and in-hospital mortality. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study across 28 Canadian hospitals from 2015 to 2022 included consecutive patients who were admitted for aspiration. Patients were categorized based on new long-term enteral feeding tube insertion during hospital stay or not. The primary outcome was the time to death in hospital. Secondary outcomes included time to discharge alive and hospital readmission for aspiration within 90 days. We used propensity score weighting to balance covariates, and a competing risk model to describe in-hospital death and discharge. RESULTS: Of 12,850 patients admitted for aspiration, 852 (6.6%) patients received a long-term enteral feeding tube. In the hospital, 184 (21.6%) and 2489 (20.8%) patients in the enteral feeding tube group and no enteral feeding tube group died, respectively. Within 90 days of discharge, 127 (14.9%) and 1148 (9.6%) patients in the enteral feeding tube and no enteral feeding tube group were readmitted for aspiration, respectively. After balancing covariates, an enteral feeding tube was associated with a similar in-hospital mortality risk (subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR] = 1.05, 95% CI = 0.89-1.23; P = 0.5800), longer time to discharge alive (sHR = 0.58, 95% CI = 0.54-0.63; P < 0.0001), and a higher risk of readmission (risk difference = 5.0%, 95% CI = 2.4%-7.6%; P = 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Initiation of long-term enteral tube feeding was not uncommon after admission for aspiration and was not associated with an improvement in the probability of being discharged alive from the hospital or readmitted for aspiration.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".