Incidence and Risk Factors of Refeeding Syndrome in Preterm Infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the incidence and risk factors associated with refeeding syndrome (RFS) in preterm infants (≤32 weeks gestational age) during their first week of life. Infants (gestational age ≤ 32 weeks; birth weight < 1500 g) who were admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), level III, and received parenteral nutrition between January 2015 and April 2024 were retrospectively evaluated. Modified log-Poisson regression with generalized linear models and a robust variance estimator was applied to adjust the relative risk of risk factors. Of the 760 infants identified, 289 (38%) developed RFS. In the multivariable regression analysis, male, intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH), and sodium phosphate significantly affected RFS. Male infants had significantly increased RFS risk (aRR1.31; 95% CI 1.08-1.59). The RFS risk was significantly higher in infants with IVH (aRR 1.71; 95% CI 1.27-2.13). However, infants who received higher sodium phosphate in their first week of life had significantly lower RFS risk (aRR 0.67; 95% 0.47-0.98). This study revealed a notable incidence of RFS among preterm infants aged ≤32 gestational weeks, with sex, IVH, and low sodium phosphate as significant risk factors. Refined RFS diagnostic criteria and targeted interventions are needed for optimal management.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".