Thiamine, Riboflavin, Pyridoxine, and Vitamin C Status in Premature Infants Receiving Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of data about water soluble vitamin status in low birthweight infants. Therefore, the authors' objective was to assess current feeding protocols. METHODS: The authors measured serum concentrations for riboflavin, pyridoxine, and vitamin C and functional assays for thiamine and riboflavin longitudinally in 16 premature infants (birthweight, 1,336 +/- 351 g; gestational age, 30 +/- 2.5 weeks) before receiving nutrition (time 1, 2 +/- 1 days), during supplemental or parenteral nutrition (time 2, 16 +/- 10 days) and while receiving full oral feedings (time 3, 32 +/- 15 days). In plasma, vitamin C was measured colorimetrically, and riboflavin and pyridoxine were measured using high-performance liquid chromatography. The erythrocyte transketolase test as a functional evaluation of thiamine and the erythrocyte glutathione reductase test for riboflavin were measured colorimetrically. RESULTS: At time 1, nutrient intake of vitamins were negligible because infants were receiving intravenous glucose and electrolytes only. Intakes differed between time 2 and time 3 for thiamine (510 +/- 280 and 254 +/- 115 microg. kg-1. d-1, respectively), riboflavin (624 +/- 305 and 371 +/- 193 microg. kg-1. d-1, respectively), and pyridoxine (394 +/- 243 and 173 +/- 85 microg/100 kcal, respectively), but not for vitamin C (32 +/- 17 and 28 +/- 12 mg. kg-1. d-1, respectively). Blood levels at times 1, 2, and 3 were for thiamine (4.9 +/- 2.7%, 3.3 +/- 6.6%, and 4.1 +/- 9% erythrocyte transketolase test, respectively), riboflavin (0.91 +/- 0.31, 0.7 +/- 0.3, 0.91 +/- 0.18 erythrocyte glutathione reductase test, respectively), riboflavin (19.5 +/- 17, 23.3 +/- 8.6, 17.6 +/- 10 ng/mL, respectively), pyridoxine (32 +/- 25, 40 +/- 16, 37 +/- 26 ng/mL, respectively), and vitamin C (5.2 +/- 3, 5 +/- 2.2, 10 +/- 5 microg/mL, respectively) and did not differ at those times. CONCLUSIONS: Current intakes of these vitamins, except for possibly vitamin C, during parenteral and enteral nutrition seem to result in adequate plasma concentrations and normal functional indices.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".