MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385295695 · doi:10.1055/a-2140-8727

Current Patterns of Probiotic Use in U.S. Neonatal Intensive Care Units: A Multi-Institution Survey

2023· article· en· W4385295695 on OpenAlexaff
Morcos Hanna, Irfan Ahmad, Toby Yanowitz, Jae Kim, Catherine J. Hunter, Robert DiGeronimo, Kaashif A. Ahmad, Kevin M. Sullivan, Troy A. Markel, Amy B. Hair, Hala Chaaban, Mohan Pammi, Katie A. Huff, Bonny Jasani, Lynn Fuchs, Alain Cuna, Parvesh Mohan Garg, Kristina M. Reber, Muralidhar H. Premkumar

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Perinatology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicInfant Nutrition and Health
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProbioticIntensive careIntensive care medicineInstitutionPediatricsBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Probiotic supplementation is associated with health benefits in preterm infants. The 2021 American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) statement on probiotic use advised caution, citing heterogeneity and absence of federal regulation. We assessed the impact of the AAP statement and current institution-wide patterns of probiotic use across neonatal intensive care units (NICU) across the United States. STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional web-based institutional survey using REDCap was emailed to 430 Children's Hospital Neonatal Consortium (CHNC) and Pediatrix Medical Group institutions. The survey captured data on probiotic formulations, supplementation, initiation and cessation criteria, reasons for discontinuation, interest in initiating, and AAP statement's impact. RESULTS: Ninety-five (22.1%) hospitals, including 42/46 (91%) CHNC and 53/384 (14%) Pediatrix institutions, completed the survey. Thirty-seven (39%) currently use probiotics. Fourteen different probiotic formulations were reported. The common criteria for initiation were birth weight <1,500 g and gestational age <32 weeks. Parental consent or assent was obtained at only 30% of institutions. Five hospitals (11%) with prior probiotic use discontinued solely due to the AAP statement. Overall, 23 (24%) of hospitals indicated that the AAP statement significantly influenced their decision regarding probiotic use. Nineteen of 51 nonusers (37%) are considering initiation. CONCLUSION: Probiotic use in preterm infants is likely increasing in NICUs across the United States, but significant variability exists. The 2021 AAP statement had variable impact on NICUs' decision regarding probiotic use. The growing interest in adopting probiotics and the significant interhospital variability highlight the need for better regulation and consensus guidelines to ensure standardized use. KEY POINTS: · Probiotic use in preterm infants is likely increasing in U.S. NICUs, but clinical variability exists.. · The AAP statement on probiotic use in preterm infants had a modest impact on current practices.. · There's a need for better product regulation and consensus guidelines to ensure standardized use..

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)0.001
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 score0.113
Threshold uncertainty score0.422

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.288 · 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

Citations15
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of PerinatologySame topicInfant Nutrition and HealthFrench-language works237,207