MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Supplementary Material for: Association between Growth Trajectories and Body Composition Outcomes in Very Preterm Infants: A Cohort Study

2025· dataset· en· W6920940277 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2025
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicInfant Nutrition and Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGestational ageBirth weightCohortCohort studyBody weightGestationProspective cohort studyAnthropometryLean body mass

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: There is a need to establish realistic, rather than idealistic, postnatal growth targets. We aimed to characterize body composition outcomes of preterm infants growing along recently defined individualized growth trajectories. Methods: In this cohort study, infants born <33 weeks of gestation in the United States, Canada, Germany, and Austria between 2012-2022 were included if they had body composition measurements at term-equivalent age. Growth trajectories for each infant were generated retrospectively based on weight data collected at birth and at term-equivalent age. This allowed for the calculation of the difference between actual and target weight at term-equivalent age or discharge and stratification of infants into three growth trajectories: 1) 100g or further below target, 2) within target (±99g), and 3) 100g or more above target. Results: A total of 1052 infants were included. The median gestational age and birthweight were 28 weeks and 1060g, respectively. A linear correlation between the actual versus target weight difference and fat-free mass (FFM) z-scores was found (r = 0.34, p < 0.0001). Among infants whose weights remained within the target range (30%), the mean FFM z-score was -1.6 [SD: 1.2] and the mean body fat percentage was 15 [SD: 5.9]. In addition to lower mean FFM z-scores, infants whose weight fell below the target range had greater declines in weight, length, and head circumference z-scores. Conclusions: Weight trajectories below a recently defined target is linked to lower FFM. Further research is needed to determine whether prospectively targeting these individualized growth trajectories improves FFM outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.605
Threshold uncertainty score0.564

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.6050.091

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshare→Same topicInfant Nutrition and Health→French-language works237,207→