How Close Are We to Achieving Energy and Nutrient Goals for Very Low Birth Weight Infants in the First Week?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Emerging evidence suggests intakes of protein and energy as early as the first week of life in preterm very low birth weight (VLBW) infants are associated with improved neurodevelopment. In response, many neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) have launched new, more aggressive early feeding guidelines. The aim of this study was to evaluate enteral and parenteral energy and macronutrient intakes during the first postnatal week in VLBW infants admitted to NICUs that have introduced more aggressive early feeding guidelines. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Estimated energy and macronutrient intakes were prospectively collected from VLBW infants fed exclusively mother's own milk and/or parenteral nutrition and compared with expert recommendations. Days to reach full enteral feeds (150 mL/kg/d) and discharge anthropometrics were examined. RESULTS: By days 6 and 7, median protein and lipid intakes, respectively, reached recommended values (3.5 and 3.0 g/kg/d). However, by day 8, many infants remained below recommended intakes for protein (34%), lipid (34%), carbohydrate (68%), and energy (71%). Late-onset sepsis was associated with a decreased likelihood of reaching full enteral feeds on any given day (hazard ratio, 0.2; 95% confidence interval, 0.1-0.5; P ≤ .0009). There was no significant relationship between week 1 nutrient intakes and anthropometrics at discharge. CONCLUSION: Despite the introduction of more aggressive early feeding guidelines and improved energy and nutrient intakes compared with literature values, many VLBW infants remain below recommended nutrition goals in the first week.
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 | 0.006 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".