MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3064907749 · doi:10.1093/pch/pxaa068.038

39 Early Higher Parenteral Lipid Intake Decreases Extra-Uterine Growth Restriction in Very Low Birth weight Infants: A Randomized Controlled Trial

2020· article· en· W3064907749 on OpenAlexaff
Wissam Alburaki, Belal Alshaikh, Kamran Yusuf

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBirth, Development, and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGestational ageBirth weightLow birth weightRandomized controlled trialIntrauterine growth restrictionPediatricsParenteral nutritionGrowth restrictionWeight lossObstetricsPregnancyGestationInternal medicineObesityBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Approximately 43-65% of very low birth weight (VLBW) infants develop extra-uterine growth restriction (EUGR). EUGR is associated with a significant increase in the risk of neurodevelopmental impairment. Inadequate early postnatal nutrition results in excessive weight loss that cannot be explained by the physiologic contraction of body water alone. EUGR and postnatal growth failure are usually associated with negative early energy and nitrogen balance in the first week of life. Growth trajectories after initial weight loss have similar slopes regardless of gestational age, which indicates that the early excessive weight loss is a lead cause for EUGR. Objectives To study whether an early and higher parenteral lipid intake in the first week after birth would decrease the percentage of weight loss and subsequently the incidence of EUGR. Design/Methods This was a randomized, open-label, control trial of appropriate-for-gestational age VLBW infants admitted to our level III NICU. Lipid intake in the control group started at 0.5-1 g/kg/day and was increased daily by 0.5-1 g/kg/day until 3 g/kg/day was reached. The intervention group was started on 2 g/kg/day then increased to 3 g/kg/day the following day. Triglyceride levels were measured the day after the start and after each increase in lipid intake. Results Among the 176 infants assessed for eligibility, eighty-three were included in the trial. There were no significant differences between the control and the intervention group in mean gestational age (27.3 ± 2.4 vs. 27.1 ± 2.3 weeks respectively) or birth weight (1011 ± 250 vs. 1019 ± 271 g respectively). Infants in the intervention group were started on lipid earlier (13.8±7.8 vs. 17.5±7.8 h; p=0.03) and had higher cumulative lipid intake in the first 7 days of age (13.5±4.2 vs. 10.9±3.5 g/kg; p=0.004) that led to a protein to energy ratio; closer to the recommended values. Total fluid intake was similar between the two groups. Infants in the intervention group had a lower percentage of weight loss (10.4±3.6 vs. 12.7±4.6; p=0.02). The mean triglyceride level was higher in the intervention group (1.91± 0.79 vs. 1.49±0.54 mmol/L; p= 0.01), however, hypertriglyceridemia was similar between the two groups at 2 and 3 g/kg/day of lipid intake. Enteral energy and protein intake calculated weekly between the time of parenteral nutrition discontinuation and 36 weeks corrected gestational age (CGA) were similar between the 2 groups. EUGR at 36 weeks CGA was significantly lower in the intervention group (38.6% vs. 67.6%; p=0.01). Conclusion In VLBW infants, the provision of an early and higher dose of parenteral lipid in the first week of life results in less weight loss and lower incidence of EUGR.

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 score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0030.002
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child Health→Same topicBirth, Development, and Health→French-language works237,207→