A MATCHED COHORT STUDY OF FEEDING PRACTICE GUIDELINES FOR INFANTS WEIGHING LESS THAN 1,500 G
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of clinical practice guidelines (CPG) for the nutritional management of infants weighing < 1,500 g. SUBJECTS: Infants weighing < 1,500 g (n = 200) admitted to the NICU who had no major congenital anomalies were enrolled. DESIGN AND METHODS: A before-and-after matched cohort study was conducted during 1996/1997 and 1998/1999 enrolling infants in a Standard Practice (SP) group and CPG group, respectively. Weight-stratified CPG were introduced between these 2 study periods. Data on the first 100 babies who could be matched for birth weight and gestational age were analyzed. Data collection continued until full feedings were established and tolerated for 48 hours or the infant was discharged from the hospital, whichever came first. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Of the 200 infants in the study (median gestational age 28 weeks), 142 infants attained full feedings. The median time to full feedings was 15 days in both groups, and a paired sample t test showed no significant difference between the 2 groups (P = 0.35). PRINCIPAL RESULTS: No statistically significant differences in the age of feeding commencement, number of feeding interruptions, days on total parenteral nutrition, days to regain birth weight, age at discharge, incidence of sepsis, necrotizing enterocolitis, or use of erythromycin were found. CONCLUSIONS: The CPG was a safe alternative to standardize nutritional practices in the NICU. The lack of differences between groups shown in this study is likely related to gut immaturity limiting the infant's response to changes in feeding practices, inconsistent use of the guidelines, confounding factors, the small sample size, or the similarity between SP and the CPG.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".