Nutritional intake and diet quality over three years following liver transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recipients of liver transplantation (LT) are at high risk of malnutrition, sarcopenia and cardiovascular disease, yet no long-term dietary guideline after LT exists. This study aims to describe the nutritional intake and diet quality of LT recipients at 1-, 2-, and 3-years post-transplantation. METHODS: This cross-sectional study included adult patients with previous cirrhosis who underwent LT, divided into three cohorts: Cohort A (1-year post-LT), cohort B (2-years post-LT) and cohort C (3-years post-LT). Dietary intakes were assessed using the web-based 24 h dietary recall (R24W) and compared to the Acceptable Macronutrient Distribution Ranges (AMDR) and micronutrient reference values for the general population. Adherence to the Mediterranean diet and to the Canada's Food Guide were assessed using the Mediterranean (MED) score and the Healthy Eating Food Index (HEFI)-2019, respectively. RESULTS: Sixty-two LT recipients (62.9 % male) were included in this study: Cohort A (n = 23), cohort B (n = 14) and cohort C (n = 25). No significant differences were found between cohorts A, B and C in terms of intake of energy (2436.0; 2097.5; 1847.0 kcal), protein (90.3; 75.2; 85.6 g), carbohydrate (267.6; 269.1; 227.4 g) and total fat (95.3; 74.9; 70.7 g), respectively. Total fat intake was at the upper limit of the AMDR across all cohorts. Compared to males, females showed lower adherence to the AMDR of carbohydrate and to the recommended intakes for iron and calcium (p = 0.036; 0.004; and 0.002; respectively). Fiber and vitamins A, D and E intakes were below recommended levels, while sodium exceeded the recommended level for both sexes. Adherence to the Mediterranean diet (score 18.0/44) and Canada's Food Guide (score 39.0/80) was relatively low. CONCLUSIONS: Nutritional intakes and diet quality indices in LT recipient remained unchanged across the three years post-LT, with significant deficiencies in certain micronutrients. Macronutrients intake could be optimized to better meet the specific needs of this population. Tailored dietary guidelines are needed for LT recipients, after the early phase post-surgery.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".