Comparison of the effect of ursodeoxycholic acid and multistrain synbiotic on indirect hyperbilirubinemia among neonates treated with phototherapy: A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This study was aimed at evaluating the effect of ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) and multistrain synbiotic on indirect hyperbilirubinemia among neonates treated with phototherapy. Materials and Methods: This double-blind, randomized clinical trial was conducted on 120 subjects presenting with indirect hyperbilirubinemia in 2019. Subjects were randomly divided into three groups of synbiotic, UDCA, and control. The synbiotic group received five drops/day of synbiotic in addition to phototherapy. UDCA group received 10 mg/kg/day of Ursobil divided every 12 h in addition to phototherapy. The Control group received a placebo (water) in addition to phototherapy. Phototherapy was discontinued when the bilirubin levels reached <10 mg/dL. Total bilirubin levels were measured using the diazo method at 12, 24, and 36 h after hospitalization. This study used repeated measure analysis of variance and post hoc tests. Results: The mean total of bilirubin was substantially decreased in both synbiotic and UDCA groups as compared to the control group at 24 h after hospitalization (P < 0.001). Moreover, the Bonferroni post hoc test showed significant differences regarding the mean total of bilirubin between the three groups (P < 0.05) except for the association between UDCA and synbiotic at 24 h after hospitalization (P > 0.99). Conclusion: Findings suggest that UDCA and synbiotic administration alongside phototherapy are more effective in reducing bilirubin levels as compared to phototherapy alone.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".