79: Withholding Feeds During Blood Transfusion and Risk of Transfusion Associated Necrotizing Enterocolitis (TANEC)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evidence of holding feeds during blood transfusion is not conclusive. To determine the incidence of TANEC before and after implementation of holding feeds peri-PRBC transfusion. A retrospective review was conducted on VLBW infants admitted to the NICU at Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Canada during the period from June, 2006 to June, 2014. We defined NEC according to modified Bell's criteria and TANEC as NEC occurring within 48 hours from receiving PRBCs transfusions. Epoch 1 was defined as the period before implementing the policy of Withholding feeds during PRBC transfusion (June 2006 to December 2011). Epoch 2 was defined as period after policy implementation (January 2012 to June 2014). 1550 VLBW infants were admitted to NICU in Epoch 1, Of them 59 (3.8%) had NEC. 34% (20/59) of NEC cases had fulfilled the criteria for TANEC. 872 VLBW infants were admitted to NICU in Epoch 2, Of them 35 (4.0%) had NEC. 20% (7/35) of NEC cases fulfilled the criteria for TANEC. Comparison of demographic and baseline characteristics are in [Table 1]. There was clinical but not statistical difference in TANEC cases in Epoch 1 vs Epoch 2 [34% vs 20% respectively (p 0.16)]. Results comparing TANEC cases in Epochs 1 vs 2 are in [Table 2]. There was trend for reduction in TANEC cases after implementing the policy of withholding feeding peri-transfusion of PRBCs. Larger, multicenter study is needed to answer other related clinical questions like holding feeds for longer periods to offer greater protection against TANEC.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".