Vitamin A and E Supplementation in Breast-Fed Newborns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Vitamins A and E are two potent antioxidant nutrients that play a significant role in immune function. In contrast to the numerous studies of vitamin A and E status in children, adolescents, and adults, information on term infants, particularly breast-fed infants, is scarce. The goals of the present investigation were to examine the vitamins A and E nutritional status of term breast-fed infants at birth and to assess retinol and tocopherol plasma levels during a 3-month supplementation trial. METHODS: The study was a prospective, blinded comparison of a supplementation protocol with a placebo in a group of consecutively recruited term newborns. The supplemented group received 3000 IU vitamin A and 5 IU vitamin E orally. The placebo group received a solution of similar viscosity and organoleptic characteristics. Vitamin A and E were separated by reverse-phase high-performance liquid chromatography on a C18 Spectrasyl column and quantified by ultraviolet spectrophotometry. RESULTS: Vitamin A and E levels steadily increased with age in both groups of infants. However, levels at 3 months were higher in the supplemented than in the control group. CONCLUSION: The data show that supplementation with 3000 IU vitamin A and 5 IU vitamin E for 3 months increases circulating vitamin levels in newborn term babies compared with those in nonsupplemented 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".