Status Nutrisi Pasien dengan Stoma: Tinjauan Sistematik Nutritional Status in Stoma Patients : Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sebanyak 650.000 orang Amerika Serikat memiliki kolostomi dan ileostomi yang merupakan operasi tambahan untuk membantu pasien memenuhi kebutuhan nutrisi sehari-hari. Malnutrisi ditemukan sebanyak 24,2% pada pasien kanker kolorektal yang memiliki kolostomi. Untuk mengetahui faktor yang memengaruhi status nutrisi pada pasien yang menjalani kolostomi dan ileostomi Pencarian menggunakan database PubMed, Sciencedirect, dan Cochrane dilakukan dengan menggunakan kata kunci nutrition dan colostomy. Data kemudian dikumpulkan dan dilakukan penyaringan menggunakan bantuan Rayyan. Newcastle Ottawa Score digunakan seabgai alat untuk mengevaluasi risiko bias. Hasil: 6 artikel yang berisi 3 studi merupakan kohort dan 3 studi merupakan potong lintang dengan total 2534 sampel yang menjalani operasi ileostomi dan kolostomi. Luaran status nutrisi yang dievaluasi beragam, mulai dari berat badan, BMI, lingkar lengan, tricep skinfold, onset flatus, onset stoma output, hingga serum protein dan serum albumin. Penyakit yang mendasari, kebiasaan makan pasien, aktivitas fisik serta frekuensi pasien membersihkan stoma dan kepeduliannya terhadap penampilan adalah beberapa faktor yang memengaruhi status nutrisi pada pasien yang menjalani ileostomi dan kolostomi.
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 | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".