MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049230202 · doi:10.1053/adnc.2002.31511

EVIDENCE-BASED FEEDING GUIDELINES FOR VERY LOW-BIRTH-WEIGHT INFANTS

2002· review· en· W2049230202 on OpenAlexaff
Shahirose Premji, Bosco Paes, Kevan Jacobson, Lorraine Chessell

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Neonatal Care · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicInfant Nutrition and Health
Canadian institutionsFoothills Medical Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineParenteral nutritionEnteral administrationBreast milkPediatricsLow birth weightIntensive care medicineClinical PracticeBreast feedingFamily medicinePregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clinical practice guidelines (CPG) for the nutritional management of premature infants are limited. This project focused on the development of a research-based enteral feeding CPG for infants of < 1,500 g. The CPG was based on an extensive literature review and developed through a process of consensus decision making by a team of clinical researchers. Infants that weigh < 1,000 g initiate minimal enteral nutrition (MEN) at 48 hours; nutritional feedings begin on day 5 to 6 of life. For infants between 1,000 and 1,500 g, nutritional feedings begin at 48 hours and are advanced at a rate of less than 30 mL/kg per day. The benefits and risks of continuous versus intermittent nasogastric tube feeding were inconclusive; therefore, the CPG does not stipulate a feeding method. Breast milk is used preferentially, and specific guidelines for the definition and management of feeding intolerance are provided. A follow-up study testing this CPG has been completed and is published in the original research section of this issue.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.130
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
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

Citations38
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Neonatal CareSame topicInfant Nutrition and HealthFrench-language works237,207