40% Glucose Gel for the Treatment of Asymptomatic Neonatal Hypoglycemia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Mother Infant Care Center at Fort Belvoir Community Hospital (FBCH) recently revised its asymptotic neonatal hypoglycemia (ANH) protocol and adopted 40% glucose gel into its treatment pathway. The previous protocol used infant formula as the primary intervention. PURPOSE: To evaluate the effectiveness of 40% glucose gel on exclusive human milk diet rates, time on protocol, level II Special Care Nursery (SCN) admission rates, length of stay (LOS), and total hospital costs for newborns with ANH at FBCH. METHODS: Infants with ANH were treated with 40% glucose gel (n = 35) and compared with a historical group of infants with ANH (n = 29) who were treated with formula. RESULTS: Exclusive human milk diet rates increased by 33.6%. The mean time on protocol dropped by 1.13 hours. The SCN admission rates dropped by 2.4% in the postimplementation group. The mean LOS was more than 12 hours less in the postimplementation group. The mean total cost per patient was $1190.60 lower after implementation of 40% glucose gel. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The use of 40% glucose gel is a patient-focused, less-invasive, and cost-effective treatment of ANH. IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH: More studies are needed to better define neonatal hypoglycemia. The use of 40% glucose gel is safe for use in infants with ANH; however, more studies are needed to examine its comprehensive benefits.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".