Surveillance practices of pediatric intestinal failure patients by North American intestinal rehabilitation programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Advancements in the survival of pediatric intestinal failure (IF) has resulted in a larger population of children requiring long-term parenteral nutrition (PN). Monitoring to prevent or address complications is vital in IF management, but currently there is no consensus on what to monitor or frequency. Our objective was to determine surveillance practices in North American (Canada and the United States) intestinal rehabilitation programs (IRPs). Material and Methods: A cross-sectional survey was completed using a questionnaire developed by our center. Surveys were emailed to centers identified from the American Society of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition IF working group. Data collected included program demographics and surveillance of liver and renal function, venous patency, bone health, macro- and micronutrients, growth, neurocognitive development, and quality of life (QoL). Descriptive analysis was performed on pooled responses with programs stratified into those with greater and lesser than 50 patients on home PN. Results: Twenty-five of 49 programs (51 %) responded with a total representation of 2995 patients including 971 patients on PN. Twenty IRPs (79.2 %) perform routine abdominal ultrasounds, however only 2 programs report evaluation of renal function. Eighteen IRPs (72 %) monitor venous patency and 56 % have schedule to evaluate bone health. Five programs (20 %) report formal neurocognitive follow up and 25 % monitor child and family QoL. Conclusion: There is wide variation in surveillance practices among Canada and US based pediatric IRPs. Data to support surveillance practices is needed. A consensus surveillance schedule could ensure early recognition and mitigation of complications to help improve outcome in this population.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".