Nutrient Enrichment of Human Milk with Human and Bovine Milk-Based Fortifiers for Infants Born <1250 g: 18-Month Neurodevelopment Follow-Up of a Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bovine milk-based fortifiers (BMBF) have been standard of care for nutrient fortification of feeds for very low birth weight (VLBW) infants, however, there is increasing use of human milk-based fortifiers (HMBF) in neonatal care despite additional costs and limited supporting data. No randomized clinical trial has followed infants fed these fortifiers after initial hospitalization. To compare neurodevelopment in infants born weighing <1250 g fed maternal milk with supplemental donor milk and either a HMBF or BMBF. This is a follow-up of a completed pragmatic, triple-blind, parallel group randomized clinical trial conducted in Southern Ontario between August 2014 and March 2016 (NCT02137473) with feeding tolerance as the primary outcome. Infants weighing <1250 g at birth were block randomized by an online third-party service to receive either HMBF (n = 64) or BMBF (n = 63) added to maternal milk with supplemental donor milk during hospitalization. Neurodevelopment was assessed at 18-mo corrected age using the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development, Third Edition. Follow-up was completed in October 2017. Of the 127 infants randomized, 109 returned for neurodevelopmental assessment. No statistically significant differences between fortifiers were identified for cognitive composite scores [adjusted mean scores 94.7 in the HMBF group and 95.9 in the BMBF group; fully adjusted mean difference, −1.1 (95% CI: −6.5 to 4.4)], language composite scores [adjusted scores 92.4 in the HMBF group and 93.1 in the BMBF; fully adjusted mean difference, −1.2 (−7.5 to 5.1)], or motor composite scores [adjusted scores 95.6 in the HMBF group and 97.7 in the BMBF; fully adjusted mean difference, −1.1 (−6.3 to 4.2)]. There was no difference in the proportion of participants that died or had neurodevelopmental impairment or disability between groups. Providing HMBF compared with BMBF does not improve neurodevelopmental scores at 18-mo corrected age in infants born <1250 g otherwise fed a human milk diet. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT02137473.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".