Human-Based Human Milk Fortifier as Rescue Therapy in Very Low Birth Weight Infants Demonstrating Intolerance to Bovine-Based Human Milk Fortifier
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the results of utilizing a human milk-based human milk fortifier (HMHMF) as rescue therapy to meet nutritional requirements in very low birth weight and preterm infants demonstrating feeding intolerance to bovine-based human milk fortifier (BHMF) in the Canadian Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: At two Level III NICUs in Winnipeg, MB, Canada, a rescue protocol was implemented to provide HMHMF for infants demonstrating intolerance to BHMF. To qualify for rescue, infants were required to experience two episodes of significant gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms associated with fortification with BHMF. A case series report was conducted retrospectively examining the success of rescue therapy, growth rates, protein, and calorie intakes before and after initiation of HMHMF in seven infants. RESULTS: Seven infants (birth weight 723 ± 247 g, gestation 25.3 ± 3.4 weeks) were treated with rescue fortification with HMHMF. All infants were transitioned off parenteral nutrition (PN) without relapse of GI symptoms. Growth rate, protein, and calorie intakes improved with the use of HMHMF. CONCLUSIONS: Very low birth weight and preterm infants with GI intolerance to BHMF were successfully rescued with use of HMHMF. Improvements in growth were achieved without need for supplementation with PN through achievement of sufficient enteral calorie and protein intakes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".