Nutritional Intake, Energy Expenditure, and Growth of Infants Following Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia Repair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: The pathophysiology of failure to thrive in congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH) has not been fully elucidated, and the nutritional care of these infants is hindered by paucity of data on the optimal calorie requirements for growth. The primary objective of this study was to investigate the energy intake required for infants with CDH to grow optimally at the time of first hospital discharge. The secondary objectives were to assess their measured resting energy expenditure in infancy, and their long-term growth outcomes. METHODS: Nutritional intake, anthropometrics, indirect calorimetry results, and respiratory status of infants with CDH from 2011 to 2014 were collected retrospectively. Data on confounders (gastroesophageal reflux disease and feeding intolerance, respiratory rate and pulmonary hypertension) were also collected. Analyses were performed using Stata (College Station, TX). RESULTS: Of the 72 infants diagnosed with CDH during that period of time, 43 met the inclusion criteria. A caloric intake of 125.0 ± 20 kcal · kg · day was required to meet discharge weight gain criteria (25-35 g · kg · day). In a subset of 17 patients, measured resting energy expenditure was higher than predicted resting energy expenditure (58.0 ± 18 vs 46.6 ± 3 kcal · kg · day, P < 0.05), and 59% of infants were hypermetabolic (measured resting energy expenditure >110% of predicted resting energy expenditure) in early infancy. Failure to thrive prevalence at discharge was 16.2% compared to 3.6% and 4.2% at 12- and 24-months of age, respectively (P = 0.03; P = 0.005, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Optimal weight gain can be achieved with higher than predicted calorie provision. Most infants with CDH are hypermetabolic. Despite this, failure to thrive prevalence can improve during the first year of life.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".