Exclusive Maternal Milk Compared With Exclusive Formula on Growth and Health Outcomes in Very-Low-Birthweight Preterm Infants: Phase II of the Pre-B Project and an Evidence Analysis Center Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As part of the Pre-B Project, a systematic review was conducted to evaluate associations between exclusive maternal milk (≥75%) intake and exclusive formula intake and growth and health outcomes in very-low-birthweight (VLBW) preterm infants. The protocols from the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics' Evidence Analysis Center and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist were followed. Thirteen observational studies were included; 11 studies reported data that could be synthesized in a pooled analysis. The evidence is very uncertain (very low quality) about the effect of exclusive maternal milk on all outcomes due to observational study designs and risk of selection, performance, detection, and reporting bias in most of the included studies. Very-low-quality evidence suggested that providing VLBW preterm infants with exclusive maternal milk was not associated with mortality, risk of necrotizing enterocolitis, sepsis, or developing bronchopulmonary dysplasia, as compared with exclusive preterm formula, but exclusive maternal milk was associated with a lower risk of retinopathy of prematurity (very low certainty). Results may change when additional studies are conducted. There was no difference in weight, length, and head circumference gain between infants fed fortified exclusive maternal milk and infants receiving exclusive preterm formula; however, weight and length gain were lower in infants fed non-fortified exclusive maternal milk. Given the observational nature of human milk research, cause-and-effect evidence was lacking for VLBW preterm infants. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=86829, PROSPERO ID: CRD42018086829.
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 | 0.021 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".