Fat and Fat-Free Mass of Preterm and Term Infants from Birth to Six Months: A Review of Current Evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To optimize infant nutrition, the nature of weight gain must be analyzed. This study aims to review publications and develop growth charts for fat and fat-free mass for preterm and term infants. Body composition data measured by air displacement plethysmography (ADP) and dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) in preterm and term infants until six months corrected age were abstracted from publications (31 December 1990 to 30 April 2019). Age-specific percentiles were calculated. ADP measurements were used in 110 studies (2855 preterm and 22,410 term infants), and DXA was used in 28 studies (1147 preterm and 3542 term infants). At term age, preterm infants had higher percent-fat than term-born infants (16% vs. 11%, p < 0.001). At 52 weeks postmenstrual age (PMA), both reached similar percent-fat (24% vs. 25%). In contrast, at term age, preterm infants had less fat-free mass (2500 g vs. 2900 g) by 400 g. This difference decreased to 250 g by 52 weeks, and to 100 g at 60 weeks PMA (5000 g vs. 5100 g). DXA fat-free mass data were comparable with ADP. However, median percent-fat was up to 5% higher with DXA measurements compared with ADP with PMA > 50 weeks. There are methodological differences between ADP and DXA measures for infants with higher fat mass. The cause of higher fat mass in preterm infants at term age needs further investigation.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".