Relationships Between Early Neonatal Nutrition and Neurodevelopment at School Age in Children Born Very Preterm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine whether a new nutrition protocol designed to increase early protein intakes while reducing fluid volume in infants born very preterm was associated with altered neurodevelopment and growth in childhood. METHODS: A retrospective, observational cohort study of children born <30 weeks' gestation or <1500 g and admitted to the neonatal unit, National Women's Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand, before and after a change in nutrition protocol. The primary outcome was neurodevelopmental impairment at 7 years (any of Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children full scale IQ < 85, Movement Assessment Battery for Children-2 total score ≤5th centile, cerebral palsy, blind, or deaf requiring aids). Outcomes were compared between groups and for the overall cohort using generalized linear regression, adjusted for sex and birth weight z score. RESULTS: Of 201 eligible children, 128 (64%) were assessed (55/89 [62%] exposed to the old nutrition protocol, 73 of 112 [65%] to the new protocol). Children who experienced the new protocol received more protein, less energy, and less carbohydrate in postnatal days 1 to 7. Neurodevelopmental impairment was similar at 7 years (30/73 [41%] vs 25/55 [45%], adjusted odds ratio [AOR] [95% confidence interval] 0.78 [0.35-1.70], P = 0.55), as was the incidence of cerebral palsy (AOR 7.36 [0.88-61.40], P = 0.07). Growth and body composition were also similar between groups. An extra 1 g/kg parenteral protein intake in postnatal days 1 to 7 was associated with a 27% increased odds of cerebral palsy (AOR 1.27 [1.03-1.57], P = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: Higher early protein intakes do not change overall rates of neurodevelopmental impairment or growth at 7 years. Further research is needed to determine the effects of higher early parenteral protein intake on motor development.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".