MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402677211 · doi:10.1097/mco.0000000000001063

Nutrition in pediatric end-stage liver disease

2024· review· en· W4402677211 on OpenAlexaff
Tejas S. Desai, Jessie M. Hulst, Robert Bandsma, Sagar Mehta

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Clinical Nutrition & Metabolic Care · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Disease and Transplantation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMalnutritionMedicineLiver diseaseIntensive care medicineDiseasePsychological interventionClinical nutritionSarcopeniaChronic liver diseaseMEDLINEPediatricsPathologyCirrhosisInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The aim of this review is to outline recent studies relating to nutritional status and outcomes in pediatric end-stage liver disease. MAIN FINDINGS: Pediatric patients with chronic and end-stage liver disease are at high risk of malnutrition. Given additional growth demands in children and the inherent complications of chronic liver disease, achieving adequate nutrition in these patients remains a challenge. In addition, while guidelines on nutrition in chronic liver disease exist, global approaches and definitions of malnutrition vary. Recent literature has focused on sarcopenia and nutrition-related transplant outcomes, with some studies exploring nutritional assessment and management. Pediatric studies however continue to lag adult research, with limited prospective and interventional studies. SUMMARY: Optimizing nutrition in pediatric end-stage liver disease remains a challenge, however understanding of the mechanisms and clinical manifestations of malnutrition in this population is improving. Despite these efforts, high quality studies to determine optimal nutrition strategies and interventions are lacking behind adult evidence and should be the focus of future research.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.185
GPT teacher head0.487
Teacher spread0.302 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in Clinical Nutrition & Metabolic CareSame topicLiver Disease and TransplantationFrench-language works237,207