Beneficial Effects of Probiotic Administration in Extremely Low Birthweight Infants: A Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this review was to evaluate the beneficial effects of probiotic supplementation on extremely low birthweight infants (birthweight <1000 g). Extremely low birthweight (ELBW) infants are the most vulnerable population in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). They are at the highest risk for necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC), sepsis, and inadequate nutrition due to their immature gastrointestinal (GI) function. Nutrition plays an important role in the future neurodevelopmental outcomes of these infants. Research methods for the review were conducted using PubMed and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). In total, eight research studies evaluated the effect of probiotic use in ELBW infants: three studies assessed GI colonization, five studies assessed enteral feeding and GI tolerance, one study assessed growth, five studies assessed NEC, five studies assessed sepsis, and two studies assessed length of hospital stay. This review found the use of probiotics improved GI tolerance, weight gain and length of hospital stay in ELBW infants, but was unable to make conclusions on the effect of probiotic use on incidences of NEC and sepsis. More research is needed in ELBW infants before making probiotic supplementation a standard of care in this population.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".