Shielding Parenteral Nutrition From Light Improves Survival Rate in Premature Infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Intravenous nutrition preparations that are not photoprotected generate oxidants, which are deleterious for cell survival. The question remains: are these observations of clinical relevance in individuals receiving parenteral nutrition (PN), especially in those who exhibit immature antioxidant defenses such as premature infants? Objective: To review clinical trials reporting the effect of light‐exposed vs light‐protected PN to determine whether photoprotection reduces neonatal mortality in preterm infants. Data source: Electronic databases, abstracts in relevant journals, and references in manuscripts between 1980 and 2014. Selection criteria: Newborn, premature infants, PN, photoprotection, shielding from light, randomization, mortality, death. Methods: Consensus for inclusion reached by 2 reviewers; meta‐analysis of trials and observational studies reporting mortality at 36 weeks' gestational age or hospital discharge. Results: Four trials meeting selection criteria, which involved a total of 800 newborn premature infants, were included. Across trials, gestational age (mean ± SD) ranged from 26 ± 1 to 31 ± 2 weeks, birth weight from 775 ± 161 to 1588 ± 366 g, and mortality from 5%–32%. Mortality in the light‐protected group was half of that in the light‐exposed group (95% confidence interval, 0.32–0.87) and twice as high in males compared with females (χ 2 , P = .01). Conclusion: Shielding PN from light has vital repercussions that call for action to provide photoprotected delivery systems and infusion sets in premature infants. Further studies should be extended to the increasing number of children and adults receiving long‐term home PN to evaluate the effects of light protection on severe complications that impede their quality 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".