Neurodevelopmental Outcome during the First Year of Life in Preterm Infants after Supplementation of a Prebiotic Mixture in the Neonatal Period: A Follow-Up Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The study aimed to determine the effect of enteral supplementation of a prebiotic mixture (neutral and acidic oligosaccharides) in the neonatal period on neurodevelopmental outcome in preterm infants with a gestational age of less than 32 weeks and/or birth weight of less than 1,500 g in the first year of life. METHODS: Neurodevelopmental outcome consisted of tone and motility according to Touwen, motor ability according to the Alberta Infant Motor Scale, as well as vision and hearing were evaluated at 0, 3, 6, and 12 months corrected age (CA). To adjust for potential confounders, data were analyzed by multinomial or logistic regression. RESULTS: In total, 93 of 101 infants (92%) participated in the study (prebiotic mixture group [n = 48] and placebo group [n = 45]). Incidence of suspect and abnormal neurodevelopmental outcome and delayed motor ability was not different in the prebiotic mixture and placebo group at 0, 3, 6, and 12 months (CA). Infants with 1 or more neonatal infections or more had a higher incidence of abnormal neurodevelopmental outcome (OR: 20.73; 95% CI: 1.31-328.46; p = 0.03) at 6 months CA. CONCLUSION: Short-term enteral supplementation of a prebiotic mixture in the neonatal period had no effect on neurodevelopmental outcome in preterm infants in the first year of life. However, serious neonatal infections in preterm infants were associated with adverse neurodevelopmental outcome at 6 months, but not at 12 months.
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.
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 it