MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2055559957 · doi:10.1542/peds.108.2.359

Growth and Development in Preterm Infants Fed Long-Chain Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids: A Prospective, Randomized Controlled Trial

2001· article· en· W2055559957 on OpenAlexaff
Deborah L. O’Connor, Robert T. Hall, David H. Adamkin, Nancy Auestad, Marcella Castillo, William E. Connor, Sonja L. Connor, Kathleen Fitzgerald, Sharon Groh‐Wargo, E. Eugenie Hartmann, Joan R. Jacobs, Jeri S. Janowsky, Alan Lucas, Dean Margeson, Patrícia Mena, Martha Neuringer, Mirjana Nesin, Lynn T. Singer, Terence Stephenson, Joanne S. Szabo, Vance Zemon

Bibliographic record

VenuePEDIATRICS · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicFatty Acid Research and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDocosahexaenoic acidFish oilPolyunsaturated fatty acidArachidonic acidMedicineEnteral administrationInfant formulaTriglycerideVisual acuityRandomized controlled trialLong chainFatty acidParenteral nutritionAnimal scienceInternal medicineBiochemistryFish <Actinopterygii>BiologyPediatricsCholesterolChemistrySurgeryFishery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: A randomized, masked, controlled trial was conducted to assess effects of supplementing premature infant formulas with oils containing the long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids, arachidonic acid (AA; 20:4 n6), and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA; 22:6 n3) on growth, visual acuity, and multiple indices of development. METHODS: Infants (N = 470) with birth weights 750 to 1800 g were assigned within 72 hours of the first enteral feeding to 1 of 3 formula groups with or without long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids: 1) control (N = 144), 2) AA+DHA from fish/fungal oil (N = 140), and 3) AA+DHA from egg-derived triglyceride (egg-TG)/fish oil (N = 143). Infants were fed human milk and/or Similac Special Care with or without 0.42% AA and 0.26% DHA to term corrected age (CA), then fed human milk or NeoSure with or without 0.42% AA and 0.16% DHA to 12 months' CA. Infants fed exclusively human milk to term CA (EHM-T; N = 43) served as a reference. RESULTS: Visual acuity measured by acuity cards at 2, 4, and 6 months' CA was not different among groups. Visual acuity measured by swept-parameter visual-evoked potentials in a subgroup from 3 sites (45 control, 50 AA+DHA [fish/fungal]; 39 AA+DHA [egg-TG/fish]; and 23 EHM-T) was better in both the AA+DHA (fish/fungal; least square [LS] means [cycle/degree] +/- standard error [SE; octaves] 11.4 +/- 0.1) and AA+DHA (egg-TG/fish; 12.5 +/- 0.1) than control (8.4 +/- 0.1) and closer to that of the EHM-T group (16.0 +/- 0.2) at 6 months' CA. Visual acuity improved from 4 to 6 months' CA in all but the control group. Scores on the Fagan test of novelty preference were greater in AA+DHA (egg-TG/fish; LS means +/- SE, 59.4 +/- 7.7) than AA+DHA (fish/fungal; 57.0 +/- 7.5) and control (57.5 +/- 7.4) at 6 months' CA, but not at 9 months' CA. There were no differences in the Bayley Mental Development Index at 12 months' CA. However, the Bayley motor development index was higher for AA+DHA (fish/fungal; LS means +/- SE, 90.6 +/- 4.4) than control (81.8 +/- 4.3) for infants </=1250 g. When Spanish-speaking infants and twins were excluded from the analyses, the MacArthur Communicative Development Inventory revealed that control infants (LS means +/- SE, 94.1 +/- 2.9) had lower vocabulary comprehension at 14 months' CA than AA+DHA (fish/fungal) infants (100.6 +/- 2.9) or AA+DHA (egg-TG/fish) infants (102.2 +/- 2.8). There were no consistent differences in weight, length, head circumference, or anthropometric gains. CONCLUSION: These results showed a benefit of supplementing formulas for premature infants with AA and DHA from either a fish/fungal or an egg-TG/fish source from the time of first enteral feeding to 12 months' CA.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations390
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePEDIATRICSSame topicFatty Acid Research and HealthFrench-language works237,207