MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3022112691 · doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2020.04.031

Individualized target fortification of breast milk with protein, carbohydrates, and fat for preterm infants: A double-blind randomized controlled trial

2020· article· en· W3022112691 on OpenAlexafffund
Niels Rochow, Gerhard Fusch, Anaam Ali, Akshdeep Bhatia, Hon Yiu So, Renata Iskander, Lorraine Chessell, Salhab el Helou, Christoph Fusch

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Nutrition · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicInfant Nutrition and Health
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineBreast milkRandomized controlled trialGestational ageFortificationAnimal scienceInternal medicinePregnancyPhysiologyFood scienceBiochemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND & AIMS: In preterm infants, natural variation of breast milk composition makes it difficult to achieve recommended macronutrient intakes with standard fortification. Evidence suggests that nutritional deficiency induces poor postnatal growth. This study investigates impacts of target fortification on preterm growth and metabolism by adjusting breast milk macronutrients. METHODS: This study was conducted as a single-centre, double-blind, randomized controlled trial for infants <30 gestational weeks. The control group received standard fortification and the intervention group received standard plus target fortification adding modular protein, lipids, and carbohydrates. Breast milk content was measured 3x/week using a validated near-infrared bedside spectrometer (NIRS). Modulars were added to achieve recommended values. To assess total nutrient intake, all 2810 native breast milk samples were analyzed - protein and fat using bedside-NIRS, lactose using tandem mass spectrometry (UPLC-MS/MS). Body composition was measured using air displacement plethysmography. Primary outcome was weight gain during the first 21 days of intervention. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics, morbidities, and total fluid intake were not different between groups (intervention n = 52, control n = 51). The intervention group infants had higher macronutrient intakes, weight gain (21.2 ± 2.5 vs 19.3 ± 2.4 g/kg/d, mean difference: 1.9 g/kg/d, 95% CI: 0.9 - 2.9), and body weight. Infants in the intervention group from mothers with below-average breast milk protein content showed greatest impact on weight at 36 weeks (2580 ± 280 g vs 2210 ± 300 g), length, head circumference, fat, and fat-free mass. Also, feeding intolerance was less frequent, blood urea was higher, and triglycerides were lower. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence that target fortification of breast milk with low macronutrient content enhances the quality of nutrition and growth and is feasible in clinical routine.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.301 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations91
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical NutritionSame topicInfant Nutrition and HealthFrench-language works237,207