Calculation of total fluid intake in 32 to 35 week gestational age infants in Canada: Does weight or day of life matter?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The daily calculation of an infant's fluid requirements is a necessary and key component of the care of preterm infants in order to ensure physiological stability and adequate caloric and nutritional intake. However, there is little research on this practice to date. Objectives: To describe the total fuid intake (TFI) prescriptions for 32–35 completed weeks gestational age infants in a Level II nursery and neonatal intensive care unit of a single centre and to examine the impact of the different prescription practices on infant weight gain. Method: A retrospective review was conducted of TFI prescriptions on all 32–35 week gestational age infants admitted to a Level II nursery and neonatal intensive care unit. In addition, Canadian pediatricians and neonatologists were surveyed regarding their fuid management practice. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and a Mann-Whitney U test. Results: A total of 80.3% of infants had TFI calculated using their current weight before surpassing birthweight. Infants that had TFI calculated on their current weight after birthweight was surpassed gained a significantly greater proportion of weight by day fourteen of life than those switched before birthweight was surpassed (p < 0.001). The clinician survey indicated a wide variation in the approach to TFI prescription. Conclusion: Fluid management practice in late preterm infants is inconsistent and may lead to negative outcomes. Further investigation is warranted.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".