MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7024201731

Reductions in Gastrointestinal Intolerance, Healthcare Resource Utilization and Cost Associated with a Plant-Based Peptide Enteral Formula with Fruit and Vegetable Ingredients: Retrospective Analysis of Children and Adults in Post-Acute Care

2025· article· en· W7024201731 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicClinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
Canadian institutionsRowan Williams Davies & Irwin (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careHepatologyEnteral administrationNauseaHealth economicsVomitingRetrospective cohort study
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gerard Minor,1 Pamela Cekola,2 Amarsinh Desai,3 Pradeep Kumar,4 Sayan Mondal,4 Yashashree Vijay Kadam,4 Katherine Fazioli,4 Abby Klosterbuer2 1Pediatric Gastroenterology Hepatology and Nutrition, KIDZ Medical Services, Hollywood, FL, USA; 2Medical Affairs, Nestlé Health Science, Bridgewater, NJ, USA; 3Market Access, Nestlé Health Science, Bridgewater, NJ, USA; 4Life Sciences & Healthcare, Clarivate Analytics, Toronto, ON, CanadaCorrespondence: Pamela Cekola, Nestlé Health Science, 1007 US Highway 202/206, Bridgewater, NJ, 08807, USA, Email pamela.cekola@us.nestle.comPurpose: Peptide-based enteral nutrition (EN) formulas are an alternative to standard EN formulas for patients with gastrointestinal (GI) intolerance. Evidence supports GI tolerance benefits of either peptide-based EN or EN containing fruits and vegetables. However, there is a lack of research on plant-based peptide EN with added fruit and vegetable ingredients.Patients and Methods: This retrospective study analyzed United States (US) claims data on children (1– 13 years) and adults (≥ 14 years) receiving plant-based peptide formulas with fruit and vegetable ingredients in post-acute care. Demographics, GI tolerance, healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs were captured. Clinical and health economic outcomes were compared 6 months pre-index and 1-, 3- and 6-months post-index in both cohorts.Results: In total, data from 91 children and 82 adults were analyzed. Mean (standard deviation [SD]) age was 5.5 (3.0) years in children and 49.0 (20.5) years in adults. Significantly fewer children and adults experienced any GI intolerance symptoms at all post-index time points compared with pre-index (p< 0.001). Significant reductions in individual GI symptoms including constipation, diarrhea, nausea and vomiting were observed in children and adults at all post-index time points compared with pre-index (p< 0.05). Significantly lower adjusted HCRU costs for inpatient and outpatient visits were reported at all post-index time points compared with pre-index for children. For adults, significant reductions in adjusted costs were reported for emergency, inpatient, outpatient, and urgent care at all post-index time points when compared with pre-index. Total adjusted costs were significantly reduced from $473,857 at pre-index to $273,134 at 3 months post-index (p< 0.05) for children, and from $676,456 at pre-index to $427,576 at 6 months post-index (p< 0.001) for adults.Conclusion: Children and adults prescribed plant-based peptide formulas with fruit and vegetable ingredients showed significant reductions in GI intolerance symptoms, HCRU and associated costs post-hospital discharge.Keywords: pediatric nutrition, peptide tube feeding, healthcare resource utilization, real food enteral formulas, intolerance, real-world evidence

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.396 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)→Same topicClinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology→French-language works237,207→