Sex differences in electrolyte abnormalities indicating refeeding syndrome risk among hospitalized adolescents and young adults with eating disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Refeeding syndrome is the gravest possible medical complication in malnourished patients undergoing refeeding in the hospital. We previously reported that males with malnutrition secondary to eating disorders required more calories and had longer hospital stays than females; however, sex differences in electrolyte abnormalities indicating refeeding syndrome risk remain unknown. The objective of this study was to assess differences in electrolyte abnormalities indicating refeeding syndrome risk among male and female adolescents and young adults with eating disorders hospitalized for medical instability. Methods We retrospectively reviewed the electronic medical records of 558 patients aged 9–25 years admitted to the University of California, San Francisco Eating Disorders Program for medical instability between May 2012 and August 2020. Serum was drawn per standard of care between 5 and 7 am each morning and electrolyte abnormalities indicating refeeding syndrome risk were defined as: hypophosphatemia (< 3.0 mg/dL), hypokalemia (< 3.5 mEq/L), and hypomagnesemia (< 1.8 mg/dL). Logistic regression was used to assess factors associated with electrolyte abnormalities indicating refeeding syndrome risk. Results Participants included 86 (15.4%) males and 472 (84.6%) females, mean (SD) age 15.5 (2.8) years. Rates of refeeding hypophosphatemia (3.5%), hypokalemia (8.1%), and hypomagnesemia (11.6%) in males hospitalized with eating disorders were low, with no statistically significant differences from females. Older age was associated with higher odds of refeeding hypophosphatemia and hypomagnesemia. Lower percent median body mass index and greater weight suppression at admission were associated with higher odds of refeeding hypophosphatemia. Conclusions Rates of electrolyte abnormalities indicating refeeding syndrome risk were low in males hospitalized for eating disorders and rates did not significantly differ from females. Together with our finding that males have higher caloric requirements and longer hospital length of stay, the finding that electrolyte abnormalities indicating refeeding syndrome risk were not greater in males than females supports future research to evaluate the safety and efficacy of higher calorie and/or faster advancing refeeding protocols for males.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".