Enteral supplementation with probiotics in preterm infants: A retrospective cohort study and 6-year follow-up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".