Mid-Childhood Outcomes after Dextrose Gel Treatment of Neonatal Hypoglycaemia: Follow-Up of the Sugar Babies Randomized Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Dextrose gel is widely used as first-line treatment for neonatal hypoglycaemia given its cost-effectiveness and ease of use. The Sugar Babies randomized trial first showed that 40% dextrose gel was more effective in reversing hypoglycaemia than feeding alone. Follow-up of the Sugar Babies Trial cohort at 2 and 4.5 years of age reported that dextrose gel appeared safe, with similar rates of neurosensory impairment in babies randomized to dextrose or placebo gel. However, some effects of neonatal hypoglycaemia may not become apparent until school age. METHODS: Follow-up of the Sugar Babies Trial cohort at 9-10 years of age was reported. The primary outcome was low educational achievement in reading or mathematics. Secondary outcomes included other aspects of educational achievement, executive function, visual-motor function, and psychosocial adaptation. RESULTS: Of 227 eligible children, 184 (81%) were assessed at a mean (SD) age of 9.3 (0.2) years. Low educational achievement was similar in dextrose and placebo groups (36/86 [42%] vs. 42/94 [45%]; RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.76, 1.44; p = 0.79). Children allocated to dextrose gel had lower visual perception standard scores (95.2 vs. 100.6; MD -5.68, 95% CI -9.79, -1.57; p = 0.006) and a greater proportion had low (<85) visual perception scores (20/88 [23%] vs. 10/95 [11%]; RR 2.23, 95% CI 1.13, 4.37; p = 0.02). Other secondary outcomes, including other aspects of visual-motor function, were similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: Treatment dextrose gel does not appear to result in any clinically significant differences in educational achievement or other neurodevelopmental outcomes at mid-childhood.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".