Effect of Early Parenteral Nutrition Discontinuation on Time to Regain Birth Weight in Very Low Birth Weight Infants: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are used to administer parenteral nutrition (PN) in very low birth weight infants (VLBW; <1500 g). Clinicians try to optimize early nutrition but also minimize the risks associated with intravascular devices. The objective of this study was to examine the early nutrition impact of discontinuing PN at different enteral feed volumes in VLBW infants. METHODS: In this unmasked, multicenter, randomized controlled trial, patients were randomly assigned to PICC removal and PN discontinuation at an enteral feed volume of 100 mL/kg/day (intervention) or 140 mL/kg/day (control). Clinically stable VLBW infants with a PICC in situ who were receiving PN were eligible for inclusion. Infants with major congenital anomalies were excluded. A total of 139 patients were enrolled; 69 and 70 patients were randomized to the intervention and control groups, respectively. The primary outcome measure was the mean difference in time (days) to regain birth weight. RESULTS: The groups were well matched at study entry. Patients in the intervention group regained birth weight more slowly (mean difference 1.5 days CI: 0.3-2.7 days, P = 0.01). The mean difference in time to regain birth weight for infants <1000 g was 2.8 days (95% CI: 0.8-4.8 days, P = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: In VLBW infants, early PICC removal at an enteral feed volume of 100 mL/kg/day compared with later removal at 140 mL/kg/day resulted in a significant delay in time to regain birth weight, and this delay was more pronounced in infants <1000 g.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".