High-dose parenteral amino acid intake in very low birthweight infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: There is uncertainty regarding optimal dosing for parenteral amino acids in preterm infants and wide variability exists in clinical practice. There is new data from clinical trials trying to address these concerns. We review the recent evidence on parenteral high-dose amino acid intake in very low birth weight (VLBW) neonates with a focus on relevant clinical outcomes. RECENT FINDINGS: Preterm infants often receive less protein than intended in the first week of life. Parenteral amino acid administration in doses that exceed requirements, however, leads to increased oxidation and higher blood urea concentrations. Amino acid doses greater than 3.5 g/kg/day have not shown to improve mortality, neonatal morbidities including sepsis, necrotizing enterocolitis, chronic lung disease, growth parameters or neurodevelopmental outcomes at 2 years of age. SUMMARY: Parenteral amino acid administration in VLBW infants should be initiated soon after birth at a dose of at least 1.5 g/kg/day to maintain anabolism. The maximum dose for parenteral amino acid should be between 2.5 and 3.5 g/kg/day, with adequate nonprotein calories and micronutrients to ensure efficient protein utilization and growth.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".