MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062279198 · doi:10.1542/peds.2008-1865

Shielding Parenteral Nutrition From Light: Does the Available Evidence Support a Randomized, Controlled Trial?

2009· article· en· W2062279198 on OpenAlexaffabout
Rebecca Sherlock, Philippe Chessex

Bibliographic record

VenuePEDIATRICS · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Canadian institutionsChildren's & Women's Health Centre of British ColumbiaUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialParenteral nutritionIntensive care medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Exposure of total parenteral nutrition to ambient light induces the generation of peroxides, creating oxidant stress, which potentially compounds complications of prematurity. Photograph protection of total parenteral nutrition reduces the peroxide load and has been shown to be associated with nutritional and biochemical benefits in animals and humans. It is unclear whether this reduction in peroxides from total parenteral nutrition leads to a reduction in the complications of prematurity, such as bronchopulmonary dysplasia. Our hypothesis was that shielding total parenteral nutrition from ambient light is linked to clinical benefits. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this work was to determine whether photograph protection of total parenteral nutrition (light protected), as compared with no photoprotection (light exposed), reduces the occurrence of bronchopulmonary dysplasia or death in preterm infants. METHODS: The Canadian Neonatal Network provided data for infants born in 2006 at <28 weeks' gestation admitted to level 3 NICUs in Canada. A retrospective analysis was performed comparing bronchopulmonary dysplasia and death in infants who received light-exposed or light-protected parenteral nutrition. Data were analyzed by using logistic regression models. RESULTS. Thirteen NICUs offered partial light-protected (total parenteral nutrition bag only, intravenous tubing exposed) and 13 offered light-exposed parenteral nutrition; not a single NICU offered complete light-protected parenteral nutrition (total parenteral nutrition bag plus intravenous tubing). The incidence of bronchopulmonary dysplasia or death was 66% with light-protected (n = 428) vs 59% with light-exposed (n = 438) parenteral nutrition. CONCLUSIONS: Partial photograph protection of total parenteral nutrition was not associated with a reduction in bronchopulmonary dysplasia or death as compared with no photograph protection; this relationship is confounded by covariates with strong associations with bronchopulmonary dysplasia. Partial photograph protection of total parenteral nutrition solutions confers no clinical benefit, while consuming valuable resources. A randomized, controlled trial is justified to determine whether there is a true "cause-and-effect" relationship between complete photoprotection of total parenteral nutrition and bronchopulmonary dysplasia or death.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.043
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.043
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.007
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0070.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.001

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations30
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePEDIATRICSSame topicNeonatal Respiratory Health ResearchFrench-language works237,207