Early Caffeine Administration and Neurodevelopmental Outcomes in Preterm Infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although caffeine use for apnea of prematurity is well studied, the long-term safety and benefit of routine early caffeine administration has not been explored. Our objective was to determine the association between early (within 2 days of birth) versus late caffeine exposure and neurodevelopmental outcomes in preterm infants. METHODS: Infants of <29 weeks' gestation born between April 2009 and September 2011 and admitted to Canadian Neonatal Network units and then assessed at Canadian Neonatal Follow-up Network centers were studied. Neonates who received caffeine were divided into early- (received within 2 days of birth) and late-caffeine (received after 2 days of birth) groups. The primary outcome was significant neurodevelopmental impairment, defined as cerebral palsy, or a Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development, Third Edition composite score of <70 on any component, hearing aid or cochlear implant, or bilateral visual impairment at 18 to 24 months' corrected age. RESULTS: Of 2108 neonates who were eligible, 1545 were in the early-caffeine group and 563 were in the late-caffeine group. Rates of bronchopulmonary dysplasia, patent ductus arteriosus, and severe neurologic injury were lower in the early-caffeine group than in the late-caffeine group. Significant neurodevelopmental impairment (adjusted odds ratio 0.68 [95% confidence interval 0.50-0.94]) and odds of Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development, Third Edition cognitive scores of <85 (adjusted odds ratio 0.67 [95% confidence interval 0.47-0.95]) were lower in the early-caffeine group than in the late-caffeine group. Propensity score-based matched-pair analyses revealed lower odds of cerebral palsy and hearing impairment only. CONCLUSIONS: Early caffeine therapy is associated with better neurodevelopmental outcomes compared with late caffeine therapy in preterm infants born at <29 weeks' gestation.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".