Medical and Nutritional Outcomes Are Similar Among Autologous Transplant Patients on Enteral Nutrition When Compared to Parenteral Nutrition. A Randomized Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (AHSCT) is the treatment for myeloma and lymphoma. posttreatment, significant nutritional and medical issues and malnutrition assessed by Subjective Global Assessment (SGA) arise. No established effective treatment for using either parenteral (PN) or enteral routes (EN) to improve nutritional status, reduce medical complications, and be cost-effective is available. We investigated the effectiveness of EN versus PN in terms of nutritional path of supplementation. AHSCT patients were randomized to either EN or PN and were followed at baseline, 15 and 30 days posttransplant. Age, body mass index, SGA, length of stay (LOS), medical complications, severity of complications, infections, overall survival (Day 100), albumin, random blood glucose, and C-reactive protein were evaluated. Descriptive statistics, Spearman's, chi square, correlations, and uni- and multivariate by type of feed, using SPSS v 29. Thirty-six patients with complete medical and laboratory data were followed. No significance in any of the medical or nutritional parameters between the two groups was found. No correlations between SGA at any time point and type of feeding were identified. No relationship between SGA, LOS, complications, albumin, CRP, or random blood glucose at all three time points was seen. EN is a safe, convenient, and cost-effective option for AHSCT patients since medical and nutritional outcomes were similar between those receiving EN compared to PN.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".