Cue-Based Feeding for Preterm Infants: A Prospective Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We set out to test whether premature infants were able to be fed orally on feeding cues and be discharged home earlier than infants fed by traditional feeding regimens. Attainment of adequate growth, adverse events, and nursing time to provide care were also assessed. After screening, the recruited premature infants (< 36 wks post-conceptual age [PCA]) were divided into two feeding regimens. A control group of 40 infants was fed using an initial combination of scheduled gavage and bottle feeding and then graduating to demand feeds. The intervention group comprised 39 neonates who had gavage feeds discontinued at study entrance and fed orally on cues. Outcomes measured were: weight gain in grams/kg/day, length of stay (in days) after enrollment, PCA on entrance and at discharge, adverse events during feeding, number of cues per feed in the intervention group, and resource utilization using nurse/patient ratios. Differences between groups were evaluated using Mann-Whitney U test, Fisher's exact test, and regression analysis. Two-tailed P values of < 0.05 were considered significant. There was no difference between groups in the mean weight gain; in the control group mean weight gain was 12.5 gm/kg/day and in the intervention group 12.1 gm/kg/day ( P = 0.83). The average length of stay in the control group of 14.5 days was significantly longer than the 10.0 days in the intervention group ( P = 0.009). This difference remained significant after adjusting for gestational age at birth in regression analysis. The average total number of adverse events in the control group (12.5 events) was significantly greater than in the intervention group (3.5 events; P = 0.007). The mean PCA on study entry was 34.4 wks in both groups and on exit 36.5 wks in the control group and 35.8 wks in the intervention group, a significant difference ( P = 0.02), The intervention group elicited 2.8 cues/feed. The nurse to patient ratios was equal in both groups throughout the study period. Cue-based feeding was possible for premature infants with similar weight gain as traditional feeding without affecting workload. Hospitalization and adverse events were decreased.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".