A pilot investigation of feeding problems in children with esophageal atresia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While many long-term complications of esophageal atresia (EA) have been well investigated, little is known about feeding difficulties in children after surgical correction of EA and its impact on caregivers. This study investigates the feeding behaviors of children with EA through a validated feeding questionnaire. The Montreal Children's Hospital Feeding Scale (MCH-FS) was filled out by the primary caregiver during patient follow-up visits in the multidisciplinary EA clinic. Demographic information, EA subtype, associated anomalies and outcomes were recorded. Results were compared between groups and to a normative sample. Thirty caregivers have completed the MCH-FS; 26 patients had type C atresia (86.7%). In comparison to controls, 17.5% of EA cases are one standard deviation above the mean feeding difficulty score, while 6.7% (n = 2) cases are greater than two standard deviations above normative values. Typical EA patients (type C who were not born <30 weeks) had mean MCH-FS scores in the subclinical range, whereas one extremely premature child and the patients with non-type C EA (n = 4) all had scores in the severe range. Feeding difficulties of patients with typical EA appear mild. Likely explanations include the use of early protocolized care and intensive multidisciplinary care in follow up. Nonetheless, patients with complicated EA (non-type C) and their caregivers tend to experience significant feeding difficulties. Early targeted care may be required for this patient subset, and additional cases will be investigated to confirm these preliminary findings and explore further risk factors of feeding problem in this cohort.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".