Preventing postnatal growth restriction in infants with birthweight less than 1300 g
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To examine nutritional and growth outcomes in very preterm infants with a birthweight (BW) of ≤1300 g before and after the introduction of enhanced enteral and parenteral nutrition protocols. METHODS: A comparison of two historical cohorts. RESULTS: There were 153 infants in cohort 1 and 118 in cohort 2. A total of 19% were growth restricted at birth in both cohorts. Feeds advanced more quickly in cohort 2, with decreased duration of central lines and TPN; breastmilk fortification occurred sooner. Calorie and protein intakes were increased during all of the first 14 days of life. Adverse clinical outcomes were unchanged, including NEC. The proportion of infants discharged <10th percentile of expected weight, decreased from 23% to 9%. In cohort 2, the z-score for body weight decreased by 0.39, compared to an average 1.03 in cohort 1 (p < 0.001). Head circumference and body weight were also significantly improved at discharge (p < 0.01), but length was improved to a lesser degree. CONCLUSION: Early and enhanced postnatal intravenous and enteral feeding can provide good postnatal growth among very immature infants without adverse effects. Calorie and particularly protein intake in early life could probably be further optimised.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".