MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2905013939 · doi:10.1111/apa.14577

Probiotics can stimulate initial head growth in premature infants

2018· letter· en· W2905013939 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Olivier Claris

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Paediatrica · 2018
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicInfant Nutrition and Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLactobacillus reuteriNecrotizing enterocolitisProbioticEnteral administrationPlaceboPediatricsParenteral nutritionEnterocolitisRandomized controlled trialClinical trialPuppyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This issue of Acta Paediatrica contains a paper by Wejryd et al. 1 that addresses the importance of nutrition in extremely low birthweight (ELBW) infants. It produced key findings on the relevance of head circumference growth, which may have implications for later neurodevelopmental impairment. The authors carried out a prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised study that focused on 134 ELBW infants who received the probiotic Lactobacillus reuteri DSM 17938 or a placebo. They showed that feeding tolerance and the time to full enteral feeds were similar in both groups. However, at 28 days of life the infants’ head circumferences had increased by a mean of 2.3 cm in the study group and 1.8 cm in the control group. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and the World Health Organization, probiotics are live micro-organisms that can confer defined health benefits to the host. For example, after they have colonised the gastrointestinal tract, probiotics may protect against necrotising enterocolitis by several mechanisms, including up-regulation of immune responses and competition for nutrients. Al Faleh et al. 2 evaluated 24 trials on a total of 5500 infants born at less than 37 weeks and weighing under 2500 g. Their meta-analysis of 20 of those studies showed that the risk of necrotising enterocolitis (stages II-II) was significantly reduced in the probiotic group with a relative risk of 0.43 and a number needed to treat of 30. However, a significant result was only clear in six studies including two with high rates of necrotising enterocolitis of 14% and 16%. Similarly, only three of the 17 studies included in their meta-analysis, published in 2005, 2008 and 2009, showed that mortality was significantly reduced, with a relative risk of 0.65 and number needed to treat of 41. The type of probiotic, day of introduction and duration of treatment varied in all of these studies. In another prospective randomised phase three trials 3, performed on 1210 premature infants born at 23–30 weeks in 24 English hospitals, Bifidobacterium breve was started within 48 hours of birth and administered daily at a concentration of 8.3–8.8 log colony-forming units. There were no differences in the incidence of necrotising enterocolitis (9–10%) or sepsis (11–12%) in the probiotic and placebo groups, and mortality was similar (8–9%). In addition, the weight z-scores between birth and 36 weeks of corrected age were no different (−1.33 versus to 1.38). The literature reports various probiotics that have been evaluated in premature infants 4. The findings suggest that tolerance and safety seem to be good and they can also decrease mortality and protect against necrotising enterocolitis. The study by Wejryd et al. 1 is the first to report a positive effect on head circumference at 28 days of life, but the authors do point out that the difference was no longer significant at 36 weeks of corrected age. Since a high-fat diet, compared to a normal-fat diet, induces a gut microbial imbalance and an alteration in social behaviour 5, they suggest that modulation of the microbiota by the L. reuteri DSM 17938 could have been neuroprotective. An earlier study in 2017 had already stressed that adequate, even aggressive, nutrition in the neonatal period could prevent extra-uterine growth retardation and improve the weight gain of preterm infants 6. Many interventions were evaluated during this study: more proteins, more lipids, adequate amounts of essential fatty acids, medium-chain triglycerides and micro-nutrients, better fortification of human milk and personalised fortification of the mother's milk. But a positive effect on head circumference was rarely demonstrated 7. Post-natal growth, and in particular head circumference, has been associated with neurodevelopmental outcome. In the retrospective Canadian neonatal network study on infants born at less than 29 weeks, significantly more cognitive and motor delays were observed in the group with poor head growth 8. Similarly, in a population-based prospective cohort of preterm infants born at less than 35 weeks, head circumference at birth and catch-down head circumference growth were synergistically associated to neurodevelopmental impairment at two years of corrected age 9. Head circumference does not reflect the quality of brain development and an excess of extravascular space can artificially augment it. Beauport et al. 10 showed that increasing early energy and lipids intake was associated with a better magnetic resonance imaging score at term corrected age in premature infants born at less than 29 weeks, particularly for the grey matter component of the score. Future studies that investigate nutritional interventions in the neonatal period should take a number of factors into account: energy and lipids intake, the type and duration of probiotics, growth parameters at birth and changes in z-scores before discharge, magnetic resonance imaging results and any follow-up. The paper by Wejryd et al. provides a valuable contribution to our knowledge about probiotics, but more translational research is needed to clarify the mechanics of their positive and long-term protective effects. This paper did not receive any external funding. The author has no conflict of interests to declare.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.186
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa PaediatricaSame topicInfant Nutrition and HealthFrench-language works237,207