MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313408270 · doi:10.3389/fnut.2022.1063121

Enteral supplementation with probiotics in preterm infants: A retrospective cohort study and 6-year follow-up

2022· article· en· W4313408270 on OpenAlexaffabout
Beth Ellen Brown, Esther Huisman, Michael R. Miller, Cindy Ulrich, Gregor Reid, Orlando da Silva

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Nutrition · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicInfant Nutrition and Health
Canadian institutionsChildren’s Health Research InstituteLawson Health Research InstituteLondon Health Sciences CentreMcMaster UniversityWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNecrotizing enterocolitisEnteral administrationGestational ageBifidobacterium breveIncidence (geometry)Bifidobacterium longumNeonatal intensive care unitPediatricsLactobacillus rhamnosusProbioticBifidobacterium bifidumCohortRetrospective cohort studyParenteral nutritionBifidobacteriumInternal medicinePregnancyLactobacillus acidophilusBiologyLactobacillus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this retrospective cohort study was to assess the impact of an enteral probiotics supplementation protocol on the incidence of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) in infants born <33 weeks gestational age (GA) or birth weight (BW) <1,500 g. In addition, a 6-year follow-up is presented after instigation of probiotic use. In October 2014, our NICU introduced an enteral probiotics supplementation protocol for infants born <33 weeks GA or BW <1,500 g. Infants received 0.5 g of Bifidobacterium breve HA-129, Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus HA-111, Bifidobacterium bifidum HA-132, Bifidobacterium longum subsp. infantis HA-116, and Bifidobacterium longum subsp. longum HA-135 (FloraBABY Ⓡ ) daily until discharge or transfer from hospital. The incidence of NEC was compared among infants for 2 years pre- and post implementation of the protocol then 6-years following continuous implementation of the probiotic use. In total, 370 infants not treated with probiotics between 2012 and 2014 were included with an incidence of NEC at 4.9%. In comparison, the 367 infants who received had a 67% reduction (4.9–1.6%, p = 0.01) in our Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU). The results remained significant (aOR = 0.26; 95% CI: 0.09, 0.72; p < 0.01) after adjusting for GA, small for gestational age, and antenatal corticosteroid use. Data from the Canadian Neonatal Network not only showed a consistently high rate of NEC in October 2014, but also identified exceedingly high rates (8.7–15.6%) in some hospitals up to 2021, while our rates have been consistently low with using the probiotic as standard therapy for low BW premature babies, with no serious side effects reported. In conclusion, the introduction of a five-strain probiotic natural health product has coincided with a reduced incidence and complications of NEC in our NICU setting.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.602

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in NutritionSame topicInfant Nutrition and HealthFrench-language works237,207