Parenteral Lipid Dose Restriction With Soy Oil, Not Fish Oil, Preserves Retinal Function in Neonatal Piglets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A dietary supply of docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and arachidonic acid (AA) is critical for neonatal retinal development. Both are absent/minimal in parenteral nutrition (PN) using soy-oil emulsions ([SO] Intralipid®) traditionally used for neonatal intestinal failure. In contrast, fish-oil emulsions ([FO] Omegaven®) are enriched in DHA/AA. The aim of this study was to compare retinal function and fatty acid content in neonatal piglets fed PN with SO or FO. METHODS: Two-5-day-old piglets were randomly allocated to SO (n = 4) or FO (n = 4), provided at equivalent doses (5g/kg/d). After 14 days of PN, retinal function was assessed by electroretinography and retinas were harvested for fatty acid content analysis. Sow-fed piglets served as a reference (REF). RESULTS: Light flash-elicited stoppage of cone and rod dark-currents (a-waves) and the ensuing postsynaptic activation of cone and rod ON bipolar cells (b-waves) were comparable between SO and REF. Responses recorded from FO were subnormal (P <0.001) when compared with both SO and REF. Retinal DHA content was similar in both groups (FO, 14.59% vs SO, 12.22%; P = 0.32); while AA was lower in FO (FO, 6.01% vs SO, 8.21%; P = .001). CONCLUSION: Paradoxically, FO containing more DHA and AA did not preserve retinal function when compared with the same low dose of SO. This may be due to the reduced AA enrichment in the retina with FO treatment. Further investigation into the ideal amounts of DHA and AA for optimal neonatal retinal function is required.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".