Next Article in Journal
The Role of Lifestyle and Diet in the Treatment of Endometriosis: A Review
Previous Article in Journal
Effects of a Red-Ginger-Based Multi-Nutrient Supplement on Optic Nerve Head Blood Flow in Open-Angle Glaucoma
Previous Article in Special Issue
Dietary Patterns and Brain Health in Middle-Aged and Older Adults: A Narrative Review
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Nutrients
Volume 18
Issue 1
10.3390/nu18010141
nutrients-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

School-Age Neurodevelopmental and Atopy Outcomes in Extremely Preterm Infants: Follow-Up from the Single Versus Triple-Strain Bifidobacterium Randomized Controlled Trial

by
Gayatri Athalye-Jape
1,2,*,
Chandra Rath
1,2,3,
Meera Esvaran
4,
Angela Jacques
5 and
Sanjay Patole
1,2
1
Neonatology, King Edward Memorial Hospital, Child and Adolescent Health Service, Perth, WA 6008, Australia
2
School of Medicine, The University of Western Australia, Perth, WA 6009, Australia
3
Neonatology, Canberra Hospital, Canberra, ACT 2605, Australia
4
Centre for Marine Science and Innovation, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia
5
Research Department, Perth Children’s Hospital, Child and Adolescent Health Service, Nedlands, WA 6009, Australia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Nutrients 2026, 18(1), 141; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu18010141 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 30 October 2025 / Revised: 15 December 2025 / Accepted: 26 December 2025 / Published: 1 January 2026
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Nutritional Influences on Cognitive Function and Neurodevelopment Across the Lifespan)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

Background: Probiotic supplementation for very preterm infants is a common practice in many neonatal units. Assessing the effects of early postnatal exposure to probiotics on long-term neurodevelopment, growth, and atopy-related outcomes is important. Extremely preterm (EP: <28 weeks) infants enrolled in our previously reported randomized trial (SiMPro) comparing short-term effects of single (SS: B. breve M-16V) versus triple-strain (TS: B. breve M-16V, B. longum subsp. infantis-M63, B. longum subsp. longum-BB536) probiotic provided a unique opportunity to study this issue. Methods: This follow-up study assessed the five-year outcomes of SiMPro trial infants, including neurodevelopment (cognition (Full Scale Intelligence Quotient/ FSIQ using WPPSI-IV), behavior (Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire), executive function (BRIEF–P)), growth (anthropometry) and blood pressure (BP). Atopy-related outcomes were evaluated at six to seven years using the ISAAC questionnaire. A linear mixed model was used for longitudinal outcomes. Impairment indicators were modeled using logistic regression and adjusted for Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA) centiles. Results: Follow-up rates (SS: 89.2% versus TS: 95%), neurodevelopmental outcomes [severe impairment (FSIQ < 70): SS: 7.4% versus TS: 4.3%; p = 0.68], growth, BMI, and BP were comparable between the SS and TS groups. The total difficulty score or BRIEF–P executive indices, disability rates (none: 66.7% versus 55.4%), and atopy-related outcomes were comparable between groups. Conclusions: Both TS and SS Bifidobacterium probiotic formulations were safe, with comparable neurodevelopmental, growth, and atopy-related outcomes at school age.

1. Introduction

Extremely preterm (EP; gestation < 28 weeks) infants are at higher risk for adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes, including impaired cognition, motor function, language, and socio-emotional regulation [1,2,3]. This vulnerability relates to the complex interplay of perinatal brain injury, systemic inflammation, an immature immune system and dysbiosis during a critical period of rapid brain development [4,5,6,7]. Increasing evidence implicates the gut–microbiome–brain axis as a key mediator of neurodevelopment, modulating neuronal maturation, synaptic plasticity, and neuroimmune interactions [8,9,10].
Probiotic supplementation is a promising strategy to optimize neurodevelopment in preterm infants. Many pathways have been proposed to explain the potential benefits of probiotics in this context, including their anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory effect and ability to counteract dysbiosis. It is important to note that systemic inflammation and gut dysbiosis are strongly linked to white matter injury and delayed cortical maturation in preterm infants [5,11,12]. Short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) produced by commensal microbes are known to enhance the gut-brain barrier and modulate microglial activity and neurotransmitter synthesis, providing a mechanistic link between microbial modulation and neurodevelopmental outcomes [13,14,15,16,17].
Gut microbiota composition and function during infancy, especially Bifidobacterial predominance, are associated with later life cognitive outcomes [18,19]. Longitudinal cohort studies have reported an association of early Bifidobacterium predominance with improved neurodevelopment and an association of dysbiosis with adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes [20,21]. Probiotics, particularly Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus species, are known to enhance intestinal barrier integrity, attenuate inflammatory cytokine responses, and generate neuroactive metabolites [13,14,15,16,17]. Probiotic strains such as B. longum subsp. infantis can metabolize human milk oligosaccharides into indole-3-lactic acid and tryptophan derivatives that exert immunoregulatory and neuroactive effects by modulating various signalling pathways and one-carbon energy metabolism essential for myelination [22,23,24,25]. Such microbial–metabolic interactions provide a plausible pathway through which probiotics may optimize neurodevelopmental maturation and function during early childhood [26,27]. Additionally, an early-life microbiota with increased Bifidobacteria and human milk oligosaccharide (HMO) utilization genes has been linked to reduced risk of childhood allergic disease [28].
Probiotic supplementation for very preterm infants is a common practice in many neonatal units. Hence, assessing the effects of early postnatal life exposure to probiotics on long-term neurodevelopment, growth, and atopy-related outcomes is important in this cohort. Extremely preterm (EP: <28 weeks) infants enrolled in our previously reported randomized trial (SiMPro) comparing short-term effects of single (SS: B. breve M-16V; n = 86) versus triple-strain (TS: B. breve M-16V, B. longum subsp. infantis-M63, B. longum subsp. longum-BB536, n = 87) probiotic provided a unique opportunity to study this issue. The primary outcome of this trial, time to full enteral feeds (150 mL/kg/day), did not differ significantly between groups. However, both probiotic regimens effectively reduced dysbiosis, marked by increased Bifidobacterium abundance and decreased Gammaproteobacteria [29].
This follow-up study aimed to assess the long-term (five to seven years) neurodevelopment, growth, and atopy-related outcomes of SiMPro trial infants.

2. Materials and Methods

The SiMPro RCT enrolled EP neonates born <28 weeks’ gestation who were ready to commence feeds or on feeds for <12 h. The methodological details of SiMPro RCT are reported in the original publication [29]. The primary outcome of the current prospective follow-up study was to assess the five-year neurodevelopmental outcomes of the SiMPro trial cohort. Secondary outcomes included neurobehavior, growth, and blood pressure (BP) at five years and atopy-related outcomes at six to seven years of age. All outcome assessors were blinded to the treatment (i.e., SS or TS probiotic) groups.

2.1. Neurodevelopmental and Neurobehavioral Outcomes

Standardized developmental assessments at five years included the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence, 4th Edition (WPPSI-IV), together with neurobehavioral profiling based on parent-report instruments. The WPPSI-IV was selected based on its broad international validation, predictive utility for school readiness and later academic achievement, and an established role in preterm population surveillance programs, including the neonatal developmental follow-up program in our hospital [30,31]. The WPPSI yields composite scores for verbal comprehension, visuospatial processing, fluid reasoning, processing speed, working memory, and full-scale IQ (FSIQ). It has demonstrated predictive validity for identifying cognitive deficit and correlates strongly with later measures of academic functioning and neuropsychological outcomes, supporting its use in early school-age follow-up of children born preterm [32].
Neurobehavioral outcomes were assessed using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ), selected for its strong global validation, diagnostic sensitivity, and demonstrated ability to detect socio-emotional strengths and difficulties across culturally and developmentally diverse populations of children [33,34]. SDQ is widely used in epidemiological and clinical research, enabling comparability with existing preterm and neurodevelopmental cohorts. Executive function was evaluated using the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function–Preschool Version (BRIEF–P), a tool with robust reliability and validity for measuring inhibitory control, cognitive flexibility, and related executive domains in children with and without neurodevelopmental disorders. The BRIEF–P’s established clinical threshold (T-score ≥ 65) reliably identifies elevated executive dysfunction and supports its use in longitudinal follow-up studies [35,36,37].
Cerebral Palsy (CP) was defined clinically as a non-progressive disorder of movement and posture in the presence of tone abnormalities and, where possible, was classified under the Gross Motor Functional Classification System (GMFCS). CP status was verified against the West Australian Register of Developmental Anomalies–Cerebral Palsy register (WARDA–CP). Disability was defined as a pre-defined criterion [38] (Table 1).
Those who did not present for a formal assessment were evaluated via telehealth using the 60-month ages and stages questionnaire (https://agesandstages.com; accessed on 30 September 2022) and assigned a disability level. SDQ and BRIEF–P were not offered during telehealth for pragmatic purposes.

2.2. Growth, Blood Pressure, and Atopy Related Outcomes

Anthropometric data, including weight, length/height, and head circumference, were collected at follow-up visits at five years and interpreted using WHO Child Growth Standards to generate age- and sex-adjusted z-scores [39]. Body mass index (BMI) and BMI z-scores were calculated accordingly. BP was routinely measured at five years, recognizing the elevated cardiometabolic risk within preterm-born children [40].
Atopy-related outcomes were evaluated at six to seven years via the International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood (ISAAC) questionnaire (https://isaac.auckland.ac.nz/resources/tools.php; ISAAC Tools accessed on 24 April 2023). The ISAAC tool has demonstrated robust validity for assessing atopy-related outcomes in childhood cohorts and facilitated international comparison [41,42].

2.3. Statistical Analysis for Clinical Data

Descriptive summaries included frequency distributions for categorical data or medians and interquartile ranges (IQR) for continuous data. Univariate comparisons between treatment groups were carried out using Chi-squared and Mann–Whitney U tests for categorical and continuous data, respectively. Bonferroni correction procedures were applied to account for the number of comparisons performed. Impairment indicators were modeled using logistic regression and adjusted for Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA) centiles, with results summarized with odds ratios (OR) and adjusted OR with 95% CI. Linearity of the outcome log odds was assessed by using the Box-Tidwell approach. Case-wise diagnostics were used to assess data for outliers. Alpha was set at 0.05, and all analyses were two-sided. Stata version 19 (StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA) was used for data analysis.

3. Results

Randomization in the SiMPro RCT was associated with no statistically significant differences in baseline demographic variables, including sex, gestational age, and socioeconomic status, between the SS and TS probiotic groups, minimizing the risk of confounding (Table 2). Socioeconomic indices, specifically SEIFA, indicated cohort representativeness. Data for parental education were missing for 77% of cases.

3.1. Neurodevelopmental and Neurobehavioral Outcomes

A total of 20 participants died during the original RCT (SS: 12 and TS: 8) [31] thus, survivors who were eligible for follow-up (FU) were SS: 74 and TS: 79. FU rates (face-to-face: SS: 56/74; TS: 56/79 and telehealth: SS: 10/74; TS: 19/79) at five years (SS: 89.2% versus TS: 95%) were comparable between the two groups of the trial (Figure 1).
Prevalence and severity of CP, autism, blindness, and deafness at school age were comparable between SS and TS groups, with no statistically significant differences observed in any outcome category. Similarly, no significant difference was noted SDQ and BRIEF-T scores between the groups. (Table 3).
At school age, no statistically significant differences were observed between the two groups across severity levels (Table 4).

3.2. Growth Outcomes

At school age, there were no statistically significant differences between SS and TS probiotic groups in height, weight, or head circumference, with mean values and z-scores closely matched across all anthropometric measures (Table 5).

3.3. Blood Pressure and Atopy-Related Outcomes

At five years, BMI, BP, and atopy-related outcomes remained similar (Table 6).

4. Discussion

Our prospective long-term follow-up showed no significant difference in neurodevelopment, growth, and atopy-related outcomes at the corrected age of five to seven years in children who had participated as EP infants (SS versus TS probiotic) in the SiMPro trial. Previous follow-up studies reporting no effect of early postnatal exposure to probiotics on long-term neurodevelopment in preterm infants are reassuring in the context of our results [43]. Follow-up of very preterm infants allocated to probiotic or placebo in the ProPrems trial (n = 1200) showed no significant difference in survival free from major neurodevelopmental impairment at age two to five years. The rate of deafness was reduced in probiotic recipients [43]. Two smaller RCTs assessing L. reuteri DSM 17938 supplementation have reported modest early improvement in language development but no effect on growth or general neurodevelopment at two years, despite improved head growth in the first month of life [44,45]. In a quasi-experimental study, including 233 very preterm infants (gestation < 32 weeks, birth weight < 1500 g), supplementation with B. bifidum NCDO 2203 and L. acidophilus NCDO 1748 from the first postnatal week until 34 weeks’, postmenstrual age significantly reduced neurodevelopmental impairment at 24 months of corrected age (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.16–0.58) [46]. A recent Canadian multi-center cohort study (n = 5191 children born at <29 weeks’ gestation) reported that probiotic supplementation was safe and may confer modest benefit in neurodevelopment and growth. The propensity score-matched analyses suggested reduced risk of significant neurodevelopmental impairment in probiotic-supplemented versus non-supplemented infants [47]. Results of various meta-analyses suggest that probiotic supplementation significantly improved weight gain and reduced the risk of feeding intolerance and necrotizing enterocolitis during the neonatal intensive care unit stay. However, it did not appear to influence long-term growth or neurodevelopment [48,49,50].
Probiotics may have limited effects on paediatric neurobehavioral conditions. In a systematic review including seven RCTs, supplementation with Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG in the first six months of life was the only intervention that reduced later diagnoses of ADHD or Asperger syndrome [51]. The remaining six trials reported no cognitive benefits, underscoring the limitations of the current evidence on probiotic effects on neurodevelopmental conditions in children and adolescents [51]. Further research is justified considering the distinct gut microbiota profiles in children with ADHD and autism and the potential of probiotics to improve outcomes in such conditions [52,53,54,55,56].
Atopy-related outcomes were comparable between the SS and TS groups in our follow-up study. Earlier studies comparing probiotic versus placebo supplementation have reported no protective effects of PS against allergic rhinitis, asthma, eczema and /or food allergy in early years of life [57]. However, investigators have reported reduced risk of hospital admissions in early childhood due to respiratory and gastrointestinal illness following probiotic exposure in the neonatal period [58]. The reduced susceptibility to such adverse outcomes in early childhood in the probiotic group may relate to enhanced gut mucosal immunity (via increased secretory IgA and epithelial integrity), suppression of colonization by pathogens and translocation, and systemic immunomodulatory effects, including downregulation of Toll-like receptor and TNF-α pathways [57,58].
The strengths of our study include the robust design of the original SiMPro RCT, minimizing the influence of confounding, comprehensive clinical data, optimal school-age follow-up rates (SS: 89.2%; TS: 95%), and the novel comparison of SS versus TS probiotics in EP infants at high risk of adverse long-term outcomes. To our knowledge, this is perhaps the first prospective follow-up study reporting such long-term outcomes of children who had participated as EP infants in the SiMPro RCT comparing SS versus TS probiotics. Our study has significant limitations that need to be acknowledged. The modest sample size was not powered for neurodevelopmental outcomes. The attrition over prolonged follow-up may have reduced statistical power further to detect a small but clinically meaningful difference, particularly within behavioral and executive function domains, as the later data were available only for those with face-to-face follow-up. Although the original study was an RCT with well-balanced baseline characteristics and no significant differences in morbidity that could have influenced adverse developmental outcomes, multiple factors arising between the neonatal period and the five-year assessment may have affected neurodevelopmental results. In addition, the absence of a control arm precluded a meaningful comparison of long-term outcomes between probiotics and the placebo group. Furthermore, the study population was derived from a single region, which may limit generalizability.

5. Conclusions

In summary, the follow-up of the SiMPro RCT cohort at school age indicates that early postnatal probiotic supplementation was safe and did not adversely affect long-term neurodevelopment in EP infants. Neither the single-strain nor the triple-strain Bifidobacteria conferred a measurable neurodevelopmental advantage at school age, reinforcing that probiotic choice in neonatal practice may be guided primarily by early clinical benefits rather than long-term cognitive or behavioral effects. Future research should focus on large, multi-center trials incorporating standardized definitions for neurodevelopmental outcomes/impairments, integrating with microbiome and metabolome profiling, for robust assessment of the effects of probiotics on long-term growth, neurodevelopment, and other outcomes in EP infants.

Author Contributions

G.A.-J. contributed to data acquisition, infant recruitment, ethics, governance applications, funding application, setting up the clinical trial, including liaising with pharmacy, ordering trial equipment for storage of faecal samples, supervision of project running, conducting developmental and medical assessments of the participants, data interpretation, writing first and final draft of manuscript and revision of manuscript for critically important intellectual content. G.A.-J. was also the guarantor for the work conducted in this study. C.R. contributed to conducting medical assessments of the participants, data acquisition, data interpretation and contribution to the final draft of the manuscript. M.E. contributed to the analysis and interpretation of data and critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content. A.J. contributed to formal statistical analysis, revising the manuscript for critical intellectual content. S.P. contributed to data interpretation, revision of the manuscript for critically important intellectual content, and manuscript writing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The follow-up part of the study received no funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Child and Adolescent Health Service Human Research Ethics Committee (number: RGS0000004537 and date of approval: 26 June 2023).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from participants for the follow-up study of the SiMPro clinical trial.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding authors.

Acknowledgments

We thank the then clinical psychologists (Safiyyah Abdul-Aziz, Lori Gardiner) of the KEMH neonatal follow-up team, Carolyn Smargiassi, administrative staff, and volunteer cadet Sophia Allen for their help with some data acquisition, liaising participant appointments for assessments and conducting the WPPSI-IV assessments.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript: aOR: adjusted Odd’s Ratio for SEIFA; BRIEF–P: Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function—Preschool version (BRIEF–P); CP: Cerebral palsy; ISAAC: International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood; GMFCS: Gross Motor Function Classification System; HC: head circumference; OR: Odd’s Ratio; PS: probiotic supplementation; RCT: Randomized Controlled Trial/s; SEIFA: Socio Economic Indexes for Areas; SDQ: Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire; SS: Single strain, TS: Triple-strain; WPPSI: Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence.

References

  1. Ådén, U.; Farooqi, A.; Hellstrom-Westas, L.; Sävman, K.; Abrahamsson, T.; Björklund, L.J.; Domellöf, M.; Elfvin, A.; Ingemansson, F.; Serenius, F.; et al. Long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes in extremely preterm infants born at 22–26 weeks gestation: A follow-up of 2–2.5 years across two Swedish national cohorts from 2004–2007 to 2014–2016. Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2025. Epub ahead of printing. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Pierrat, V.; Marchand-Martin, L.; Arnaud, C.; Kaminski, M.; Resche-Rigon, M.; Lebeaux, C.; Bodeau-Livinec, F.; Morgan, A.S.; Goffinet, F.; Marret, S.; et al. Neurodevelopmental outcome at 2 years for preterm children born at 22 to 34 weeks’ gestation in France in 2011: EPIPAGE-2 cohort study. BMJ 2017, 358, j3448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  3. Marks, I.R.; Doyle, L.W.; Mainzer, R.M.; Spittle, A.J.; Clark, M.; A Boland, R.; Anderson, P.J.; Cheong, J.L. Neurosensory, cognitive and academic outcomes at 8 years in children born 22–23 weeks’ gestation compared with more mature births. Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2024, 109, 511–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Wang, Y.; Zhu, J.; Zou, N.; Zhang, L.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, M.; Wang, C.; Yang, L. Pathogenesis from the microbial-gut-brain axis in white matter injury in preterm infants: A review. Front. Integr. Neurosci. 2023, 17, 1051689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  5. Li, L.; Yang, J.; Liu, T.; Shi, Y. Role of the gut-microbiota-metabolite-brain axis in the pathogenesis of preterm brain injury. Biomed. Pharmacother. 2023, 165, 115243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Perez, K.M.; Strobel, K.M.; Hendrixson, D.T.; Brandon, O.; Hair, A.B.; Workneh, R.; Abayneh, M.; Nangia, S.; Hoban, R.; Kolnik, S.; et al. Nutrition and the gut-brain axis in neonatal brain injury and development. Semin. Perinatol. 2024, 48, 151927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Vievermanns, K.; Dierikx, T.H.; Oldenburger, N.J.; Jamaludin, F.S.; Niemarkt, H.J.; de Meij, T.G.J. Effect of probiotic supplementation on the gut microbiota in very preterm infants: A systematic review. Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2024, 110, 57–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Talat, A.; Zuberi, A.; Khan, A.U. Unravelling the Gut-Microbiome-Brain Axis: Implications for Infant Neurodevelopment and Future Therapeutics. Curr. Microbiol. 2025, 82, 390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Wang, Q.; Yang, Q.; Liu, X. The microbiota-gut-brain axis and neurodevelopmental disorders. Protein Cell 2023, 14, 762–775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  10. Park, J.C.; Im, S.-H. The gut-immune-brain axis in neurodevelopment and neurological disorders. Microbiome Res. Rep. 2022, 1, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  11. Prasad, J.D.; van de Looij, Y.; Gunn, K.C.; Ranchhod, S.M.; White, P.B.; Berry, M.J.; Bennet, L.; Sizonenko, S.V.; Gunn, A.J.; Dean, J.M. Long-term coordinated microstructural disruptions of the developing neocortex and subcortical white matter after early postnatal systemic inflammation. Brain Behav. Immun. 2021, 94, 338–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Schneider, J.; Miller, S.P. Preterm brain Injury: White matter injury. Handb. Clin. Neurol. 2019, 162, 155–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Mercado-Monroy, J.; Falfán-Cortés, R.N.; Muñóz-Pérez, V.M.; Gómez-Aldapa, C.A.; Castro-Rosas, J. Probiotics as modulators of intestinal barrier integrity and immune homeostasis: A comprehensive review. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2025. Epub ahead of printing. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Zheng, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Tang, P.; Wu, Y.; Zhang, A.; Li, D.; Wang, C.-Z.; Wan, J.-Y.; Yao, H.; Yuan, C.-S. Probiotics fortify intestinal barrier function: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Front. Immunol. 2023, 14, 1143548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  15. Snigdha, S.; Ha, K.; Tsai, P.; Dinan, T.G.; Bartos, J.D.; Shahid, M. Probiotics: Potential novel therapeutics for microbiota-gut-brain axis dysfunction across gender and lifespan. Pharmacol. Ther. 2022, 231, 107978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Markowiak-Kopeć, P.; Śliżewska, K. The Effect of Probiotics on the Production of Short-Chain Fatty Acids by Human Intestinal Microbiome. Nutrients 2020, 12, 1107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  17. Ikeda, T.; Nishida, A.; Yamano, M.; Kimura, I. Short-chain fatty acid receptors and gut microbiota as therapeutic targets in metabolic, immune, and neurological diseases. Pharmacol. Ther. 2022, 239, 108273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Ueda, E.; Matsunaga, M.; Fujihara, H.; Kajiwara, T.; Takeda, A.K.; Watanabe, S.; Hagihara, K.; Myowa, M. Temperament in Early Childhood Is Associated With Gut Microbiota Composition and Diversity. Dev. Psychobiol. 2024, 66, e22542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. McMath, A.L.; Aguilar-Lopez, M.; Cannavale, C.N.; Khan, N.A.; Donovan, S.M. A systematic review on the impact of gastrointestinal microbiota composition and function on cognition in healthy infants and children. Front. Neurosci. 2023, 17, 1171970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  20. Beghetti, I.; Barone, M.; Turroni, S.; Biagi, E.; Sansavini, A.; Brigidi, P.; Corvaglia, L.; Aceti, A. Early-life gut microbiota and neurodevelopment in preterm infants: Any role for Bifidobacterium? Eur. J. Pediatr. 2022, 181, 1773–1777, Erratum in Eur. J. Pediatr. 2022, 181, 1779. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00431-022-04382-2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Zhang, D.; Lan, Y.; Zhang, J.; Cao, M.; Yang, X.; Wang, X. Effects of early-life gut microbiota on the neurodevelopmental outcomes of preterm infants: A multi-center, longitudinal observational study in China. Eur. J. Pediatr. 2024, 183, 1733–1740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Wong, C.B.; Huang, H.; Ning, Y.; Xiao, J. Probiotics in the New Era of Human Milk Oligosaccharides (HMOs): HMO Utilization and Beneficial Effects of Bifidobacterium longum subsp. infantis M-63 on Infant Health. Microorganisms 2024, 12, 1014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  23. Yang, S.; Cai, J.; Su, Q.; Li, Q.; Meng, X. Human milk oligosaccharides combine with Bifidobacterium longum to form the “golden shield” of the infant intestine: Metabolic strategies, health effects, and mechanisms of action. Gut Microbes 2024, 16, 2430418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  24. Tillmann, S.; Awwad, H.M.; Eskelund, A.R.; Treccani, G.; Geisel, J.; Wegener, G.; Obeid, R. Probiotics Affect One-Carbon Metabolites and Catecholamines in a Genetic Rat Model of Depression. Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 2018, 62, e1701070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  25. Dubey, H.; Roychoudhury, R.; Alex, A.; Best, C.; Liu, S.; White, A.; Carlson, A.; Azcarate-Peril, M.A.; Mansfield, L.S.; Knickmeyer, R. Effect of Human Infant Gut Microbiota on Mouse Behavior, Dendritic Complexity, and Myelination. bioRxiv 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  26. Dai, K.; Ding, L.; Yang, X.; Wang, S.; Rong, Z. Gut Microbiota and Neurodevelopment in Preterm Infants: Mechanistic Insights and Prospects for Clinical Translation. Microorganisms 2025, 13, 2213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  27. Kumar, A.; Sivamaruthi, B.S.; Dey, S.; Kumar, Y.; Malviya, R.; Prajapati, B.G.; Chaiyasut, C. Probiotics as modulators of gut-brain axis for cognitive development. Front. Pharmacol. 2024, 15, 1348297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  28. InInsel, R.A.; Jarman, J.B.; Torres, P.J.; Van Dien, S.; Culler, S.J.; de Vos, W.M. Restoring a gut Bifidobacterium community in early infancy. Cell Host Microbe 2025, 33, 2012–2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Athalye-Jape, G.; Esvaran, M.; Patole, S.; Simmer, K.; Nathan, E.; Doherty, D.; Keil, A.; Rao, S.; Chen, L.; Chandrasekaran, L.; et al. Effect of single versus multistrain probiotic in extremely preterm infants: A randomised trial. BMJ Open Gastroenterol. 2022, 9, e000811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  30. Chin, W.-C.; Wu, W.-C.; Hsu, J.-F.; Tang, I.; Yao, T.-C.; Huang, Y.-S. Correlation Analysis of Attention and Intelligence of Preterm Infants at Preschool Age: A Premature Cohort Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 3357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  31. Warschausky, S.; Raiford, S.E. Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence. In Encyclopedia of Clinical Neuropsychology; Kreutzer, J.S., DeLuca, J., Caplan, B., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Romeo, D.M.; Ricci, M.; Mirra, F.; Venezia, I.; Mallardi, M.; Pede, E.; Mercuri, E. Longitudinal Cognitive Assessment in Low-Risk Very Preterm Infants. Medicina 2022, 58, 133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  33. Gustafsson, B.M.; Proczkowska-Björklund, M.; Gustafsson, P.A. Emotional and behavioural problems in Swedish preschool children rated by preschool teachers with the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ). BMC Pediatr. 2017, 17, 110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  34. Levickis, P.; Sciberras, E.; McKean, C.; Conway, L.; Pezic, A.; Mensah, F.K.; Bavin, E.L.; Bretherton, L.; Eadie, P.; Prior, M.; et al. Language and social-emotional and behavioural wellbeing from 4 to 7 years: A community-based study. Eur. Child. Adolesc. Psychiatry 2018, 27, 849–859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  35. Herreras, E.B. Executive Functioning Profiles in Children with Neurodevelopmental Disorders. Behav. Sci. 2025, 15, 1256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  36. Sparr, V.M.; Willwohl, C.F.; Fussenegger, B.; Gang, S.; Simma, B.; Konzett, K. Five-Year Neurodevelopmental Outcome of Children Born Very Preterm Between 2012 and 2018. Neuropediatrics 2025, 56, 372–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Kongstad, I.; Petersson, S. Executive functions in everyday life in children born small for gestational age—A pilot study of pre-term to full-term children 3 years and younger. BMC Pediatr. 2025, 25, 196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  38. Athalye-Jape, G.; Lim, M.; Nathan, E.; Sharp, M. Outcomes in extremely low birth weight (≤500 g) preterm infants: A Western Australian experience. Early Hum. Dev. 2022, 167, 105553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Fenton, T.R.; Samycia, L.; Elmrayed, S.; Nasser, R.; Alshaikh, B. Growth patterns by birth size of preterm children born at 24reastfeeding, specific foods in the first year of life, and asthma at 6 years of age29 gestational weeks for the first 3 years. Paediatr. Perinat. Epidemiol. 2024, 38, 560–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Makker, K.; Kuiper, J.R.; Brady, T.; Hong, X.; Wang, G.; Pearson, C.; Sanderson, K.; O’sHea, T.M.; Wang, X.; Aziz, K. Prematurity, Neonatal Complications, and the Development of Childhood Hypertension. JAMA Netw. Open 2025, 8, e2527431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  41. Džida, S.; Raguž, M.J.; Kraljević, D.; Nikše, T.; Mabić, M.; Pavlović, K. Prevalence of asthma, allergic rhinitis, and atopic dermatitis and their association with risk factors in children in the southern region of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH). J. Asthma 2025. Epub ahead of printing. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Teixeira, V.; de Aguiar, R.L.; Schuelter-Trevisol, F.; de Andrade, G.C.; Trevisol, D.J.; Traebert, J.; Traebert, E. Breastfeeding, specific foods in the first year of life, and asthma at 6 years of age. Front. Public Health 2025, 71, e20241970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  43. Jacobs, S.E.; Hickey, L.; Donath, S.; Opie, G.F.; Anderson, P.J.; Garland, S.M.; Cheong, J.L.Y. Probiotics, prematurity and neurodevelopment: Follow-up of a randomised trial. BMJ Paediatr. Open 2017, 1, e000176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  44. Wejryd, E.; Marchini, G.; Bang, P.; Jonsson, B.; Ådén, U.; Abrahamsson, T. Neurodevelopment and Growth 2 Years After Probiotic Supplementation in Extremely Preterm Infants: A Randomised Trial. Acta Paediatr. 2025, 114, 1817–1824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  45. Wejryd, E.; Marchini, G.; Frimmel, V.; Jonsson, B.; Abrahamsson, T. Probiotics promoted head growth in extremely low birthweight infants in a double-blind placebo-controlled trial. Acta Paediatr. 2019, 108, 62–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Baucells, B.J.; Sebastiani, G.; Herrero-Aizpurua, L.; Andreu-Fernández, V.; Navarro-Tapia, E.; García-Algar, O.; Figueras-Aloy, J. Effectiveness of a probiotic combination on the neurodevelopment of the very premature infant. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 10344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  47. Shah, P.S.; Bando, N.; Lee, S.; Raghuram, K.; Beltempo, M.; Fajardo, C.; Bertelle, V.; Ly, L.G.; Banihani, R.; Alshaikh, B.N. Probiotic Receipt and Neurodevelopmental Outcomes of Infants <29 Weeks’ Gestation: A Cohort Study. J. Pediatr. 2025, 287, 114783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Panchal, H.; Athalye-Jape, G.; Rao, S.; Patole, S. Growth and neuro-developmental outcomes of probiotic supplemented preterm infants-a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 2023, 77, 855–871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  49. Kruth, S.S.; Persad, E.; Rakow, A. Probiotic Supplements Effect on Feeding Tolerance, Growth and Neonatal Morbidity in Extremely Preterm Infants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Nutrients 2025, 17, 1228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  50. Sharif, S.; Meader, N.; Oddie, S.J.; Rojas-Reyes, M.X.; McGuire, W. Probiotics to prevent necrotising enterocolitis in very preterm or very low birth weight infants. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2023, 7, CD005496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  51. Rianda, D.; Agustina, R.; Setiawan, E.; Manikam, N. Effect of probiotic supplementation on cognitive function in children and adolescents: A systematic review of randomised trials. Benef. Microbes 2019, 10, 873–882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Novau-Ferré, N.; Papandreou, C.; Rojo-Marticella, M.; Canals-Sans, J.; Bulló, M. Gut microbiome differences in children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Autism Spectrum Disorder and effects of probiotic supplementation: A randomized controlled trial. Res. Dev. Disabil. 2025, 161, 105003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Frerichs, N.M.; de Meij, T.G.; Niemarkt, H.J. Microbiome and its impact on fetal and neonatal brain development: Current opinion in pediatrics. Curr. Opin. Clin. Nutr. Metab. Care 2024, 27, 297–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  54. Fock, E.; Parnova, R. Mechanisms of Blood-Brain Barrier Protection by Microbiota-Derived Short-Chain Fatty Acids. Cells 2023, 12, 657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  55. Lan, Z.; Tang, X.; Lu, M.; Hu, Z.; Tang, Z. The role of short-chain fatty acids in central nervous system diseases: A bibliometric and visualized analysis with future directions. Heliyon 2024, 10, e26377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  56. Kelly, J.R.; Minuto, C.; Cryan, J.F.; Clarke, G.; Dinan, T.G. Cross Talk: The Microbiota and Neurodevelopmental Disorders. Front. Neurosci. 2017, 11, 490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  57. Fałta, E.K.-F.; Furmańczyk, K.; Tomaszewska, A.; Olejniczak, D.; Samoliński, B.; Samolińska-Zawisza, U. Probiotics: Myths or facts about their role in allergy prevention. Adv. Clin. Exp. Med. 2018, 27, 119–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Srinivasjois, R.; Gebremedhin, A.; Silva, D.; Rao, S.C.; Tessema, G.A.; Pereira, G. Probiotic Supplementation in the Neonatal Age Group and the Risk of Hospitalisation in the First Two Years: A Data Linkage Study from Western Australia. Nutrients 2024, 16, 2094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
Nutrients 18 00141 g001
Figure 1. Flow diagram showing participant follow-up.
Figure 1. Flow diagram showing participant follow-up.
Nutrients 18 00141 g001
Table 1. Definitions of disability.
Table 1. Definitions of disability.
Overall DisabilityCriteria
Mild (At least one criteria)A cognitive score between one and two standard deviations (SD) below the test mean, ambulant cerebral palsy (GMFCS level I/II)
Moderate (At least one criteria)A cognitive score between two and three SD below the test mean, GMFCS level III CP (ambulant with aids), unilateral deafness
Severe (At least one criteria)A cognitive score >3 SD below the test mean, GMFCS level IV/V CP, blindness (vision < 6/60), autism, bilateral deafness needing amplification
Table 2. Demographic characteristics of the original SiMPro RCT cohort.
Table 2. Demographic characteristics of the original SiMPro RCT cohort.
SS; n = 86TS; n = 87
N (%)N (%)p
SexFemale38 (44.2%)41 (47.1%)0.698
Male48 (55.8%)46 (52.9%)
GA mean (SD) 25.96 (1.35)25.79 (1.53)0.434
Parental education *
(n = 40, missing n = 133)		 0.255
secondary4 (22.2%)7 (31.8%)
post-secondary3 (16.7%)8 (36.4%)
tertiary8 (44.4%)4 (18.2%)
post-graduate3 (16.7%)3 (13.6%)
SEIFA decile (n = 135) * 0.296
14 (6.1%)8 (11.1%)
27 (10.6%)6 (8.3%)
35 (7.6%)11 (15.3%)
45 (7.6%)2 (2.8%)
512 (18.2%)7 (9.7%)
65 (7.6%)5 (6.9%)
73 (4.5%)3 (4.2%)
813 (19.7%)9 (12.5%)
93 (4.5%)10 (13.9%)
109 (13.6%)11 (15.3%)
SEIFA tertile * 0.285
119 (29.2%)25 (35.7%)
226 (40.0%)19 (27.1%)
320 (30.8%)26 (37.1%)
*: For all age follow-ups, including five-year-old corrected age follow-up. Abbreviations: GA: gestational age, SD: standard deviation, SEIFA: socio-economic indexes for areas, SS: single strain, TS: triple strain.
Table 3. Neurodevelopmental and neurobehavioral outcomes at five years.
Table 3. Neurodevelopmental and neurobehavioral outcomes at five years.
OutcomeSS (n = 66)TS (n = 74)p
Any CP4 (6.1%)4 (5.4%)1.000
CP severity (GMFCS)
4–5		2 (50.0%)3 (75.0%)1.000
2–32 (50.0%)1 (25.0%)
10 (0%)0 (0%)
Autism
suspected2 (3.0%)6 (8.1%)0.271
confirmed2 (3.0%)6 (8.1%)0.135
Autism severity level 21 (25%)1 (20.0%)1.000
Autism severity level 33 (75%)4 (80.0%)
Blindness0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)-
Deafness1 (1.5%)0 (0.0%)1.000
Completed WPPSI56 (85%)56 (76%)0.226
WPPSI-IV age (yr) median (IQR)5.25 (5.25, 5.33)5.25 (5.25, 5.33)0.816
WPPSI-IV FSIQ median (IQR)84 (127, 98)98 (84, 105)0.369
SDQ completed $ 15/ 56 (23%)16/56 (28.6%)0.998
SDQ scores: Median (IQR)
Total difficulties 9 (7, 15)15 (8.5, 17.5)0.132
Emotional symptoms 1 (0, 4)2 (0, 4)0.576
Conduct problems 1 (0, 3)3 (0.5, 4)0.295
Hyperactive inattention 6 (2, 8)6 (5, 10)0.176
Peer relationship problems 1 (0, 3)2 (0, 3.5)0.737
Prosocial behavior 9 (7, 9)6 (4, 9)0.132
Impact 0 (0, 2)0 (0, 1)0.655
BRIEF completed $26/56 (46.4%)34/56 (60.7%)0.317
BRIEF T-scores: Median (IQR)
Inhibit scale52 (45.75, 67.25)60.5 (51, 74)0.139
Emotional control scale 50.5 (43, 64.5)57 (45, 77)0.324
Shift scale 48 (42.75, 62)52 (42, 63)0.520
Working memory scale59 (49.5, 76.25)65 (54, 83)0.170
Plan/organize scale 58 (46.25, 64.25)64 (51, 75)0.129
Inhibitory self-control index 52.5 (43.75, 70.25)60 (49, 77)0.191
Flexibility index 47.5 (41.75, 66.75)59.5 (44, 70)0.366
Emergent metacognition index 58 (47, 75)66 (53, 82)0.161
Global executive composite 54 (46.5, 68.5)61 (51, 81)0.143
$: SDQ and BRIEF–P were completed only for the face-to-face assessments. Abbreviations: BRIEF–P: Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function–Preschool, CP: Cerebral Palsy, GMFCS: Gross Motor Functional Classification System, SDQ: Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire, and WPPSI: Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence
Table 4. Overall disability at school age (five years).
Table 4. Overall disability at school age (five years).
Overall Disability CategorySS (n = 66)TS (n = 74)OR (95% CI)paOR * (95% CI)p
Normal44 (66.7%)41 (55.4%)1.00 1.00
Mild 12 (18.2%)16 (21.6%)1.43 (0.61, 3.39)0.4151.39 (0.57, 3.34)0.468
Moderate-severe10 (15.2%)17 (23.0%)1.82 (0.75, 4.44)0.1851.77 (0.71, 4.39)0.218
* Adjusted for SEIFA centiles.
Table 5. Growth parameters at school age (five years).
Table 5. Growth parameters at school age (five years).
OutcomeTotal nSS Median (IQR)TS Median (IQR)p
Height (cm)107108.0 (105.0, 110.8)108.0 (105.25, 112.10)0.701
Height z score107−0.05 (−0.68, 0.54)−0.05 (−0.63, 0.81)0.707
Weight (kg)10717.55 (16.16, 19.65)17.70 (15.85, 18.95)0.297
Weight z score107−0.13 (−0.64, 0.63)−0.08 (−0.75, 0.37)0.707
HC (cm)10750.00 (49.50, 51.63)50.30 (49.10, 51.55)0.857
HC z score107−0.27 (−0.56, 0.65)−0.10 (−0.78, 0.61)0.707
Table 6. BP, BMI (at five years), and atopy-related outcomes (six years).
Table 6. BP, BMI (at five years), and atopy-related outcomes (six years).
SS (n = 74)TS (n = 79)
N (%)N (%)p
@SBP Median (IQR)103 (98, 107)103 (97.5, 107)0.948
@DBP Median (IQR)65 (61, 69)64 (60.5, 68)0.414
@BMI Median (IQR)15.14 (14.24, 16.20)14.89 (13.95, 15.79)0.220
@BMI z-score Median (IQR)−0.06 (−0.61, 0.58)−0.21 (−0.78, 0.34)0.220
Completed ISAAC questionnaire37 (50.0%)41 (51.9%)0.826
(1)
Wheeze
 Diagnosed ever10 (27.0%)12 (29.3%)0.478
 Wheezing in last 12 m5 (13.5%)8 (19.5%)0.553
(2)
Asthma
Diagnosed ever0 (0.0%)4 (9.8%)0.090
Wheeze episodes last 12 m 6 (16.2%)8 (19.5%)0.705
Frequency of wheeze episodes in last 12 m 0.424
12 (5.4%)1 (2.4%)
23 (8.1%)7 (17.1%)
31 (2.7%)0 (0.0%)
(3)
Rhinitis
Diagnosed ever3 (8.1%)2 (4.9%)0.664
episodes in last 12 m12 (32.4%)9 (22.0%)0.297
(4)
Hay fever
 Diagnosed ever12 (32.4%)12 (29.3%)0.762
 episodes in last 12 m5 (13.5%)10 (24.4%)0.262
(5)
Eczema (atopic dermatitis)
Diagnosed ever15 (40.5%)15 (36.6%)0.720
episodes in last 12 m8 (21.6%)13 (31.7%)0.316
@: SBP, DBP, BMI measured only for face-to-face assessments; ISAAC was offered to all eligible for follow-up. Abbreviations: BMI: Body Mass Index, DBP: diastolic blood pressure, and SBP: systolic blood pressure.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Athalye-Jape, G.; Rath, C.; Esvaran, M.; Jacques, A.; Patole, S. School-Age Neurodevelopmental and Atopy Outcomes in Extremely Preterm Infants: Follow-Up from the Single Versus Triple-Strain Bifidobacterium Randomized Controlled Trial. Nutrients 2026, 18, 141. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu18010141

AMA Style

Athalye-Jape G, Rath C, Esvaran M, Jacques A, Patole S. School-Age Neurodevelopmental and Atopy Outcomes in Extremely Preterm Infants: Follow-Up from the Single Versus Triple-Strain Bifidobacterium Randomized Controlled Trial. Nutrients. 2026; 18(1):141. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu18010141

Chicago/Turabian Style

Athalye-Jape, Gayatri, Chandra Rath, Meera Esvaran, Angela Jacques, and Sanjay Patole. 2026. "School-Age Neurodevelopmental and Atopy Outcomes in Extremely Preterm Infants: Follow-Up from the Single Versus Triple-Strain Bifidobacterium Randomized Controlled Trial" Nutrients 18, no. 1: 141. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu18010141

APA Style

Athalye-Jape, G., Rath, C., Esvaran, M., Jacques, A., & Patole, S. (2026). School-Age Neurodevelopmental and Atopy Outcomes in Extremely Preterm Infants: Follow-Up from the Single Versus Triple-Strain Bifidobacterium Randomized Controlled Trial. Nutrients, 18(1), 141. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu18010141

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Article metric data becomes available approximately 24 hours after publication online.
Back to TopTop