MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Growth and Body Composition of Human Milk‐Fed Premature Infants Provided with Extra Energy and Nutrients Early after Hospital Discharge: One Year Follow‐up

2008· article· en· W2283568496 on OpenAlexaffabout
Deborah L. O’Connor, Ashley Aimone, Wendy E. Ward, Jennifer Vaughan, Ann L Jefferies, Douglas M. Campbell, Elizabeth Asztalos, Mark Feldman, Joanne Rovet, Carol A. Westall, Hilary Whyte

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicInfant Nutrition and Health
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnthropometryHead circumferencePediatricsNutrientBody weightAnimal scienceBirth weightInternal medicineBiologyPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this pilot was to investigate the impact of early post‐hospital discharge supplementation of human milk with a multi‐nutrient fortifier on the growth and body composition of premature infants to one year corrected age (CA). Predominantly human milk‐fed infants (750–1800g birth weight) were randomized to an intervention (n=19) or control (n=20) group at discharge. Infants in the intervention received ~½ of their feedings supplemented with a multi‐nutrient fortifier (24kcal/fl oz, 22g protein/L plus other nutrients) for 12 weeks. Anthropometrics were determined at discharge and at 4, 6 and 12 months CA, and body composition at 4 and 12 months CA using dual energy x‐ray absorptiometry. Intervention infants were heavier, and longer at 12 months CA compared to control infants ( p <0.005). Intervention infants born ≤ 1250 g had a larger mean head circumference throughout the first year of life ( p =0.0002). Whole body bone mineral content at 4 and 12 months CA was greater in the intervention ( p =0.02) but not when controlled for length. In conclusion, adding a multi‐nutrient fortifier to the milk provided to predominantly human milk‐fed premature infants early after discharge results in sustained differences weight, length, and in smaller babies, head circumference for the first year of life. Funded by the Canadian Institute of Health Research(CIHR) and the CIHR Training Grant in Clinical Research

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicInfant Nutrition and HealthFrench-language works237,207