MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Branched-chain amino acid supplementation for improving growth and development in term and preterm neonates

2020· review· en· W3090390295 on OpenAlexaff
Shoichiro Amari, Sadequa Shahrook, Fumihiko Namba, Erika Ota, Rintaro Mori

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicInfant Nutrition and Health
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCINAHLMEDLINEParenteral nutritionPediatricsEnteral administrationCochrane LibraryNutritional SupplementationPlaceboRandomized controlled trialClinical trialPsychological interventionIntensive care medicineInternal medicineAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Branched-chain amino acids (BCAAs) play a vital role in neonatal nutrition. Optimal BCAA supplementation might improve neonatal nutrient storage, leading to better physical and neurological development and other outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of BCAA supplementation on physical growth and neurological development in term and preterm neonates. We planned to make the following comparisons: parenteral nutrition with and without BCAA supplementation; enteral BCAA supplementation versus no supplementation; and any type of supplementation including enteral, parenteral and both ways versus no supplementation. To investigate the supplementation effectiveness for different dosages assessed in the eligible trials. SEARCH METHODS: We conducted comprehensive searches using Cochrane Neonatal's standard search strategies: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2016, Issue 6), MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL (up to July 2016). We updated the search with CENTRAL (2019, Issue 8), MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL (up to August 2019). We also searched clinical trials registries and reference lists of retrieved articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include individual and cluster-randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing BCAA supplementation versus placebo or no supplementation in term and preterm neonates. We excluded trials presented only as abstracts and cross-over trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility of all potential studies identified from the search strategy. We planned to extract data using a pilot-tested standard data extraction form and assess risk of bias of the included studies following the methods described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We planned to analyse treatment effects and report their effect estimates as per dichotomous or continuous data with 95% confidence intervals. We planned to conduct subgroup analysis to investigate heterogeneity, and perform sensitivity analysis where possible. We planned to use fixed-effect meta-analysis to combine data wherever appropriate. We planned to assess evidence quality using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We did not identify any potentially eligible studies that met the inclusion criteria in this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no trial data to support or refute the idea that BCAA supplementation affects physical and neurological development and other outcomes in term and preterm neonates.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.004
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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 venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsSame topicInfant Nutrition and HealthFrench-language works237,207