Dextrose gel prophylaxis for neonatal hypoglycaemia and neurocognitive function at early school age: a randomised dosage trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of different doses of prophylactic dextrose gel on neurocognitive function and health at 6-7 years. DESIGN: Early school-age follow-up of the pre-hPOD (hypoglycaemia Prevention with Oral Dextrose) study. SETTING: Schools and communities. PATIENTS: Children born at ≥35 weeks with ≥1 risk factor for neonatal hypoglycaemia: maternal diabetes, small or large for gestational age, or late preterm. INTERVENTIONS: Four interventions commencing at 1 hour of age: dextrose gel (40%) 200 mg/kg; 400 mg/kg; 200 mg/kg and 200 mg/kg repeated before three feeds (800 mg/kg); 400 mg/kg and 200 mg/kg before three feeds (1000 mg/kg); compared with equivolume placebo (combined for analysis). MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Toolbox cognitive and motor batteries, as well as tests of motion perception, numeracy and cardiometabolic health, were used. The primary outcome was neurocognitive impairment, defined as a standard score of more than 1 SD below the age-corrected mean on one or more Toolbox tests. FINDINGS: Of 392 eligible children, 309 were assessed for the primary outcome. There were no significant differences in the rate of neurocognitive impairment between those randomised to placebo (56%) and dextrose gel (200 mg/kg 46%: adjusted risk difference (aRD)=-14%, 95% CI -35%, 7%; 400 mg/kg 48%: aRD=-7%, 95% CI -27%, 12%; 800 mg/kg 45%: aRD=-14%, 95% CI -36%, 9%; 1000 mg/kg 50%: aRD=-8%, 95% CI -29%, 13%). Children exposed to any dose of dextrose gel (combined), compared with placebo, had a lower risk of motor impairment (3% vs 14%, aRD=-11%, 95% CI -19%, -3%) and higher mean (SD) cognitive scores (106.0 (15.3) vs 101.1 (15.7), adjusted mean difference=5.4, 95% CI 1.8, 8.9). CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic neonatal dextrose gel did not alter neurocognitive impairment at early school age but may have motor and cognitive benefits. Further school-age follow-up studies are needed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".