MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3087347622 · doi:10.1139/bcb-2020-0046

Effect of bovine lactoferrin on prevention of late-onset sepsis in infants <1500 g: a pooled analysis of individual patient data from two randomized controlled trials

2020· article· en· W3087347622 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Theresa J. Ochoa, Sebastian Loli, Karina Mendoza, César Cárcamo, Sicilia Bellomo, Luis Cam, Anne Castañeda, Miguel Campos, Jan Jacobs, Veerle Cossey, Jaime Zegarra

Bibliographic record

VenueBiochemistry and Cell Biology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicInfant Nutrition and Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentBill and Melinda Gates Foundation
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialBirth weightHazard ratioSepsisLactoferrinLow birth weightProportional hazards modelInternal medicinePediatricsPhysiologyGastroenterologyPregnancyConfidence intervalBiologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We previously conducted two randomized controlled trials with bovine lactoferrin (bLF) for the prevention of late-onset sepsis (LOS) in infants with a birth weight <2500 g (Study 1) and <2000 g (Study 2). The aim of this study was to determine the preventative effects of bLF on culture-proven or probable LOS in infants with a birth weight <1500 g from both studies, and to determine the effect of bLF in relation to intake of human milk. Both trial designs had similar inclusion and exclusion criteria, the same dose of bLF [200 mg·(kg body mass)–1·day–1], and used the same control (maltodextrin). We fitted multivariate Cox regression models to estimate the effect of bLF on the risk of development of the composite outcome, adjusting for covariates. We included 335 neonates with a mean birth weight of 1162 ± 244 g; 27.5% were <1000 g. There were 33 first episodes of LOS in the bLF treatment group and 48 in the control group (19.5% vs. 28.9%). bLF had a protective effect on the risk of development of LOS [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.64; %95 CI = 0.41–0.99; p = 0.048]; particularly among infants weighing <1000 g [HR = 0.46; %95 CI = 0.22–0.96; p = 0.039] and infants with a low intake of human milk [HR = 0.40; %95 CI = 0.19–0.84; p = 0.015]. Therefore, bLF supplementation protects infants <1500 g from LOS, particularly those infants not receiving human milk.

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)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.153

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.029
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations9
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiochemistry and Cell BiologySame topicInfant Nutrition and HealthFrench-language works237,207