MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Probiotics in neonatology

2012· review· en· W1917774245 on OpenAlexaff
Leah Hickey, Susan E Jacobs, Suzanne M. Garland

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Paediatrics and Child Health · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicInfant Nutrition and Health
Canadian institutionsRoyal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProbioticNeonatologyEnteral administrationIntensive care medicineAntimicrobialMicrobiologyAntibiotic resistanceParenteral nutritionImmunologyBacteriaAntibioticsBiologyPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Probiotics are micro-organisms that confer health benefits on the host. Postulated mechanisms include: increasing resistance of the mucosal barrier to migration of bacteria and their toxins by strengthening intestinal cell junctions, modification of host response to microbial products, augmentation of immunoglobulin A mucosal responses, enhancement of enteral nutrition to inhibit the growth of pathogens; production of antimicrobial proteins; and competitive exclusion of potential pathogens. Published meta-analyses and systematic reviews report the effects of probiotics on important clinical outcomes in neonates. This paper will review the evidence for probiotic supplementation in neonatology, with a focus on preterm infants.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score0.811

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations33
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Paediatrics and Child HealthSame topicInfant Nutrition and HealthFrench-language works237,207