MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4249868793 · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd003310

Calcium and phosphorus supplementation of human milk for preterm infants

2001· review· en· W4249868793 on OpenAlexaff
Carl A Kuschel, Jane E. Harding, Vazhkudai S Kumaran

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsRoyal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineContext (archaeology)Randomized controlled trialCalciumAdverse effectClinical trialMeta-analysisConfidence intervalPediatricsPhosphorusInternal medicineChemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Preterm infants are born with low skeletal stores of calcium and phosphorus. Preterm human milk provides insufficient calcium and phosphorus to meet their estimated needs. OBJECTIVES: To determine if addition of calcium and phosphorus supplements to human milk leads to improved growth and bone metabolism without significant adverse effects in preterm infants. SEARCH STRATEGY: The standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group (NRG) was used. This includes searches of the Oxford Database of Perinatal Trials, MEDLINE, previous reviews including cross references, abstracts, conferences and symposia proceedings, expert informants, journal handsearching mainly in the English language. SELECTION CRITERIA: All trials utilizing random or quasi-random allocation to supplementation of human milk with calcium and/or phosphorus or no supplementation in preterm infants within a hospital were eligible. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted using the standard methods of the Cochrane NRG, with separate evaluation of trial quality and data extraction by each author and synthesis of data using relative risk and weighted mean difference. MAIN RESULTS: No studies which met selection criteria were identified. Excluded studies that were identified included minerals as one component of a multicomponent fortifier or reported only non-clinical outcomes (for example, urinary excretion of calcium). Two studies were excluded because of methodological concerns. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: There are no randomized controlled data evaluating clinical outcomes of calcium and phosphorus supplementation of human milk for preterm infants on which to base practice recommendations. Further trials should assess the clinical benefits and potential adverse effects of supplementation of human milk with minerals. This may best be done in the context of manipulation of the composition of human milk fortifiers containing multiple nutrients (carbohydrate, protein, and minerals).

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.074
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.074
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0040.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.184
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations19
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207