Characteristics and outcomes of home parenteral nutrition among children with severe neurological impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To describe the characteristics, secular trends, and outcomes of home parenteral nutrition (HPN) use among children with severe neurological impairment (SNI) and non-primary digestive disorders from 2010 to 2023 and compare outcomes to children with primary digestive disorders on HPN. METHODS: A retrospective review of all children with SNI and non-primary digestive disorders, where HPN was initiated between January 2010 and September 2023 at a tertiary care pediatric hospital. The Mann-Kendall trend test was used to assess trends in HPN initiation. We compared acute care service utilization in the year prior and following HPN initiation. Mortality and ability to achieve enteral autonomy outcomes were compared to those of children with HPN and primary digestive disorders. RESULTS: Of the 205 included children with HPN, 18 children had SNI and non-primary digestive disorders, 187 children had primary digestive disorders. There was an increase in HPN initiation among children with SNI and non-primary digestive disorders (p = 0.002) between 2010 and 2020. Among children with SNI and non-primary digestive disorders, HPN-related complications (line-associated infection/thrombus, nephrolithiasis, cholelithiasis) occurred in 72%. There was no change in acute care utilization in the year prior versus year following HPN initiation. Compared with the primary digestive disorders group, children with SNI and non-primary digestive disorders were less likely to achieve enteral autonomy (p < 0.0001); however, no significant differences in mortality were observed (22% vs. 8%, p = 0.09). CONCLUSIONS: HPN is increasingly being used among SNI children with non-primary digestive disorders. Compared to children with primary digestive disorders on HPN, those with SNI are less likely to achieve enteral autonomy.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".