Role of age of critically ill children at time of exposure to early or late parenteral nutrition in determining the impact hereof on long-term neurocognitive development: A secondary analysis of the PEPaNIC-RCT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Early use of parenteral nutrition (early-PN), as compared with withholding it for one week (late-PN), in the PICU, has shown to slow down recovery from critical illness and impair long-term development of 6 neurocognitive/behavioural/emotional functions assessed 2 years later. Given that key steps in brain maturation occur at different times during childhood, we hypothesised that age at time of exposure determines long-term developmental impact of early-PN. METHODS: The 786 children who were neurocognitively tested 2 years after participation in the PEPaNIC-RCT were included in this study. First, for each studied long-term outcome, interaction between randomisation to early-PN versus late-PN and age was assessed with multivariable linear regression analysis. Subsequently, for outcomes with an interaction p ≤ 0.15, the impact of early-PN versus late-PN was analysed, after adjustment for risk factors, for 4 subgroups defined based on developmentally-relevant age at time of exposure [≤28 days (n = 121), 29 days to 11 months (n = 239), 11 months to <5 years (n = 223) and ≥5 years (n = 203)]. RESULTS: Interaction between randomisation and age was present for weight, and parent-reported inhibitory control, cognitive flexibility, working memory, planning/organisation, metacognition, total executive functioning, and internalising and total behavioural/emotional problems. Subgroup analyses revealed that none of the age-groups revealed benefit, whereas children aged 29 days to <11 months were most vulnerable to harm by early-PN for development of inhibitory control (p = 0.008), working memory (p = 0.009), planning/organisation (p = 0.004), metacognition (p = 0.008), and total executive functioning (p = 0.004), and for internalising (p = 0.005) and total behavioural/emotional problems (p = 0.01). Children aged 11 months to <5 years revealed harm by early-PN for development of inhibitory control (p = 0.003). In contrast, children aged ≥5 years and neonates aged ≤28 days appeared less vulnerable. CONCLUSIONS: Critically ill children aged 29 days to 11 months at time of exposure were identified as most vulnerable to developmental harm evoked by early-PN. CLINICAL TRIALS.GOV: NCT01536275.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".