<i>Effect of Gastrostomy on Growth</i>in Children with Neurodevelopmental Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic malnutrition and growth failure are frequent consequences of feeding difficulties in neurodevelopmentally disabled children. Gastrostomy feeding has been used successfully to alleviate chronic malnutrition as well as distress and frustration associated with feeding. Unfortunately, caregivers are often resistant to gastrostomy placement. In order to determine the impact of gastrostomies in 20 children with neurodevelopmental disability (NDD), a questionnaire was used to collect caregivers' perceptions both before and after gastrostomy. The questionnaire assessed caregivers' retrospective perceptions of quality of life, feeding difficulties, and the burdens and benefits of gastrostomies. To determine impact on growth, height and weight were measured once before and three times after gastrostomy (at six, 12, and 24 months). The number of times a child was fed and the amount of time spent feeding decreased significantly following gastrostomy (p<0.001 and p<0.05, respectively). Growth for all children improved following gastrostomy (p<0.001). Pre-gastrostomy problems improved significantly following gastrostomy, as did caregivers' perceptions of quality of life for both themselves and their child (p<0.001). These results indicate that gastrostomy has a positive impact on growth for neurodevelopmentally disabled children, and on quality of life for both children and caregivers. Caregivers may find these results encouraging if they are faced with a decision about gastrostomy placement for their child.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".