Hypophosphatemia is Prevalent among Preterm Infants Less than 1,500 Grams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective This article identifies the prevalence and associated factors of hypophosphatemia (HP) in very low birth weight (VLBW) infants in the first week of life. Study Design Prospective exploratory cohort study of 106 consecutive VLBW infants admitted to neonatal intensive care at Foothills Hospital, Calgary, Canada. HP was defined as at least one measurement of serum phosphate < 1.5 mmol/L (4.5 mg/dL). Results Seventy-seven percent (82/106) of the VLBW infants had HP, with significantly higher prevalence in infants < 1,000 g (94%) compared to infants ≥ 1,000 g (61%) (p < 0.001). Hypophosphatemic infants had lower birth weight (p < 0.001), gestational age (p < 0.001), and their increase in phosphate intake was slower (p = 0.003). Respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) (p = 0.002), intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH) ≥ grade III (p = 0.020), and hyperglycemia (p = 0.013) were more frequent among hypophosphatemic infants, especially among those < 1,000 g. Mortality, seizures, arrhythmias, and need for transfusion were not different between groups. Birth weight modified the association between RDS, IVH, hyperglycemia, and HP. Conclusion HP was ubiquitous among infants < 1,000 g and highly prevalent among those weighing 1,000 to 1,500 g. While the direction of effect was not clear, RDS, IVH, and hyperglycemia were associated with HP. Prevention of HP in these physiologically immature neonates might improve neonatal outcomes.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".