Exclusive human milk for infants with gastroschisis: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Infants with gastroschisis often experience prolonged stays in hospital as they transition from parenteral nutrition to enteral feeds. The purpose of this study was to assess the evidence for the use of exclusive human milk compared to formula in these patients. Methods A structured search was performed using Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central from inception until March 2025. We included comparative studies of infants with gastroschisis who received exclusive human milk versus supplemental or exclusive formula. Screening and data extraction were completed by two independent reviewers. Results from included studies were meta-analyzed using a random-effects model and reported as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Risk of bias assessments were performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Outcomes included time to enteral autonomy, necrotizing enterocolitis, sepsis, cholestasis, and mortality. Certainty of evidence was summarized using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations criteria. Results We identified 3661 infants with gastroschisis from six retrospective cohort studies and one case-control study. Exclusive human milk was associated with a reduced risk of mortality (RR = 0.38, 95% CI: 0.15–0.99, I 2 = 0%). There were no statistically significant differences between groups for necrotizing enterocolitis, cholestasis, or sepsis. These findings were supported by low quality evidence based on retrospective data. Conclusions The best available evidence suggests that exclusive breast milk is associated with reduced mortality compared to formula among infants with gastroschisis. This estimate is based on data from retrospective studies. Further research is needed to clarify the role of donor human milk.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".