MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3207694981 · doi:10.26685/urncst.316

Mapping the Evidence on Human Milk Fortification and Cardiovascular Risk Factors and Outcomes among Low Birth Weight Infants: A Scoping Review

2021· review· en· W3207694981 on OpenAlexaff
Sharleen G. Maduranayagam, Sasha Pinto, Leora Chiaromonte

Bibliographic record

VenueUndergraduate Research in Natural and Clinical Science and Technology (URNCST) Journal · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicInfant Nutrition and Health
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLow birth weightBirth weightRandomized controlled trialAnthropometryCINAHLPopulationContext (archaeology)PediatricsCohort studyEnvironmental healthPregnancyInternal medicinePsychological interventionBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Preterm and low birth weight infants receiving a diet of human milk require fortification with protein, carbohydrates, vitamins, and minerals due to missed growth and nutrient accretion that would otherwise occur in utero. Although rapid catch-up growth improves anthropometric and neurodevelopmental indices, research has suggested that accelerated postnatal growth may be associated with poor long-term cardiometabolic outcomes. Methods: We conducted a scoping review to map the evidence on human milk fortification and cardiometabolic risk factors and outcomes among low birth weight infants. We searched Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science from inception to June 2021 and examined grey literature for relevant referenced articles. Studies were included if they were a primary study focused on fortified human milk and cardiometabolic risk factors or outcomes among low birth weight infants. A modified version of the Cochrane Collaboration Randomized Controlled Trial data collection form guided data collection. We conducted a narrative synthesis of the results structured around the Population, Concept, Context framework. Results: We included 19 articles (14 randomized controlled trials, three quasi-randomized trials and two cohort studies) on cardiometabolic risk factors among 1,955 low birth weight infants who received fortified human milk. None of the included studies addressed long-term cardiometabolic outcomes. Body weight was the most examined risk factor in all included studies, with 13 studies observing benefit from human milk fortification. Two studies linked rapid growth with cardiometabolic risk factors. Discussion: The focus across the 19 included studies was the anthropometric advantages of fortified HM among LBW infants. A meta-analysis was not performed for this review, but if completed may yield a different inference. Conclusion: Limited evidence is available regarding the long-term cardiometabolic outcomes among low birth weight infants who received fortified human milk. Existing literature is focused on the short-term anthropometric benefits of fortification post-hospital discharge. Yet, some reports have linked rapid early postnatal growth with the development of cardiometabolic risk factors later in life. Future studies should explore the long-term cardiometabolic outcomes among low birth weight infants with the goal of optimizing anthropometric and brain growth while minimizing long-term cardiometabolic risk.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.094
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.083

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.094
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.007
Bibliometrics0.0200.020
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.235
GPT teacher head0.502
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUndergraduate Research in Natural and Clinical Science and Technology (URNCST) JournalSame topicInfant Nutrition and HealthFrench-language works237,207