MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3023553636 · doi:10.1210/jendso/bvaa046.422

SUN-072 Age of Critically Ill Children at Time of Exposure to Early Parenteral Nutrition Determines Its Impact on Long-Term Physical and Cognitive Development

2020· article· en· W3023553636 on OpenAlexaff
Ines Verlinden, Karolijn Dulfer, Fabián Güiza, José Hordijk, Ilse Vanhorebeek, Gonzalo Garcia Guerra, Koen Joosten, Sascha Verbruggen, Greet Van den Berghe

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Endocrine Society · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfant Development and Preterm Care
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNeurocognitiveRandomized controlled trialPediatricsRandomizationAnthropometryPopulationCognitionInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The PEPaNIC RCT, which investigated critically ill children admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit, showed that early administration of parenteral nutrition (early PN) as compared with withholding PN for 1 week (late PN) negatively affected 6 neurocognitive functions assessed 2 years later (1). However, it is theoretically possible that age at time of exposure determines whether early PN has negative or positive impact on long-term physical and cognitive development, possibly resulting in a neutral outcome for the total study population. In this secondary analysis of the PEPaNIC RCT, we investigated whether age at exposure to early PN determined its 2 years developmental impact. Methods The 786 children who were evaluated 2 years after inclusion in the PEPaNIC RCT for health status, anthropometrics, executive functioning, emotional and behavioral problems, intelligence and visual motor integration were categorized for age at randomization (0–17 years). We defined 4 ±similarly sized age groups based on previously reported timing of cerebral maturation spurts: neonates ≤28 days old (n=121), infants 29 days to <11 months old (n=239), toddlers 11 months to <5 years old (n=223), children 5 years or older (n=203). For each outcome, interaction between the randomized intervention and age at randomization was assessed with a multivariable linear regression analysis adjusted for baseline risk factors. For the outcomes with an interaction p≤0.15, we subsequently compared the adjusted effect of early PN versus late PN within each age group. Results Interaction between randomization and age group was identified for weight, development of inhibitory control, flexibility, working memory, planning and organization, metacognition, total executive functioning and internalizing and total behavioral problems. In particular among infants 29 days to <11 months old, harm by early PN was observed for several neurocognitive functions [inhibitory control (p=0.008), flexibility (p=0.02), working memory (p=0.009), planning and organization (p=0.004), metacognition (p=0.008), total executive functioning (p=0.004), internalizing (p=0.005) and total behavioral problems (p=0.01)]. Among toddlers 11 months to <5 years old, neurocognitive harm by early PN was only observed for inhibitory control (p=0.003) and total executive functioning (p=0.02). In neonates ≤28 days old, early PN did not affect neurocognitive development whereas it increased weight (p=0.03) but not height. Among children 5 years or older, early PN only appeared to affect development of planning and organization in a positive manner (p=0.03). Conclusion Critically ill children who were exposed to early PN at an age between 29 days and 11 months were found to be most vulnerable for neurocognitive developmental harm evoked by early administration of PN, as assessed 2 years later. 1 Verstraete et al. Lancet Respir Med 2018

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Endocrine Society→Same topicInfant Development and Preterm Care→French-language works237,207→