Timing and Substrate of Enteral Feeding as Risk Factors for Developing Retinopathy of Prematurity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective Enteral feeding has advantages over parenteral nutrition, so the objective is to evaluate the effects of timing and substrate of enteral feeding on the risk of developing retinopathy of prematurity (ROP). Study Design Retrospective cohort study of 7,483 premature infants undergoing ROP examinations at 29 North American and Canadian hospitals, 2006–2012 (The G-ROP Study). Multivariable regression evaluated associations between enteral feeding by week of life and any or severe ROP, adjusting for birth weight and gestational age. Results 3,224 (43.1%) had ROP and 931(12.4%) severe ROP. Compared to no enteral feeding , any enteral feeding was independently protective for ROP in all weeks 1–6; odds ratios 0.50–0.74 ( P < .0001 to P < .02) for any ROP and 0.43–0.59 ( P < .02 to P = .0001) for SEVERE ROP. Conclusion In this cohort, any substrate of enteral feeding during each of the first SIX weeks of life was associated with lower odds of ROP and severe ROP.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".