Effectiveness and safety of the use of industrialized parenteral nutrition compared to individualized nutrition in preterm neonates: Technical Note of Rapid Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is a study of a Technical Note for Rapid Review (NTRR) aimed at providing an overview of systematic reviews on the efficacy and safety of industrialized parenteral nutrition compared to individualized nutrition in premature neonates. The study will follow the methodological guidelines published by the Ministry of Health (Brazil) and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2015 statement (PRISMA-P) to ensure rigor and transparency. A systematic search will be conducted in databases including the Virtual Health Library (BVS Health), PubMed via Medline, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus using indexed descriptors, synonyms, and terms related to the study's theme. Inclusion criteria prioritize systematic reviews (SRs), with primary studies included, if necessary, to update the evidence. Article selection and data collection will be independently conducted by two reviewers using the Rayyan software, with discrepancies resolved through consensus and discussion with a third reviewer. Outcomes such as weight gain, infectious and metabolic complications, among others, will be assessed. A descriptive analysis will be performed to present the synthesis of identified evidence. The quality and risk of bias of systematic review studies will be assessed using the AMSTAR-2 tool. For primary studies, evaluation will be done using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for Randomized Clinical Trials or the New-Castle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for observational studies. The potential risk of bias in estimating intervention performance for outcomes of interest will be assessed using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Working Group (GRADE) tool.
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 | 0.167 | 0.465 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.003 |
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".