Long‐term enteral nutrition with a nasogastric tube can be safe and effective: A case report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Home enteral nutrition (HEN) is a vital feeding practice for those who have chronic disorders that prevent them from eating normally. Although short-term feeding is predominantly done via nasogastric (NG) tubes and long-term feeding is done via percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube, we present a case that demonstrates that the long-term use of NG tubes may be possible. Our case involves an adult woman who has been fed via an NG tube for >3 years with no complications. She has had three replacement tubes inserted over these 3 years and has not required any healthcare visits related to tube dysfunction or complications. She continues to do well. A literature search determined that there are no reports of long-term use (greater than a year) of NG feeding tubes in outpatient adults, and thus the true rate of complications related to NG tubes is unknown. We review the reported complications associated with long-term PEG tubes. Although PEGs are typically regarded as safer in long-term feeding situations, this case demonstrates that NG tubes could prove effective under certain circumstances in which the insertion of a PEG may not be possible.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".