MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975780500 · doi:10.1055/s-0028-1090583

Cue-Based Feeding for Preterm Infants: A Prospective Trial

2008· article· en· W1975780500 on OpenAlex
Barbara Puckett, Vaneeta K. Grover, Tanya Holt, Koravangattu Sankaran

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Perinatology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfant Development and Preterm Care
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityRoyal University Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWeight gainGestational ageBirth weightAdverse effectMann–Whitney U testRandomized controlled trialPediatricsExact testProspective cohort studyAnalysis of varianceInternal medicineBody weightPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.416
Threshold uncertainty score0.467

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.276 · 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