A semidemand feeding protocol reduced time to full oral feeding in healthy preterm infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
McCain GC, Gartside PS, Greenberg JM, et al. A feeding protocol for healthy preterm infants that shortens time to oral feeding. J Pediatr2001 Sep; 139 : 374 –9 [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] QUESTION: In healthy preterm infants, is a semidemand feeding protocol more effective than the standard practice of scheduled feedings for reducing the time to attain full oral feeding and maintaining a satisfactory weight gain? Randomised (unclear allocation concealment), unblinded controlled trial with {follow up to attainment of full oral feeding}*. 2 neonatal intensive care units in Cincinnati, Ohio, USA. 89 preterm infants who were 32 to ≤34 weeks postconceptional age and appropriate for gestational age. Infants with congenital anomalies, gastrointestinal conditions, neurological diagnoses, or grade III/IV intracranial haemorrhage were excluded. 81 infants (91%) completed the study (mean postconceptional age at study entry 32 wks, 53% boys). 44 infants were allocated to a semidemand feeding protocol. 10 minutes of non-nutritive sucking (NNS) were provided every 3 hours, followed up by an assessment of behavioural state (modified Anderson Behavioral State scale). If the infant was judged to be in a state of … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DThe%2BJournal%2Bof%2Bpediatrics%26rft.stitle%253DJ%2BPediatr%26rft.aulast%253DMcCain%26rft.auinit1%253DG.%2BC.%26rft.volume%253D139%26rft.issue%253D3%26rft.spage%253D374%26rft.epage%253D379%26rft.atitle%253DA%2Bfeeding%2Bprotocol%2Bfor%2Bhealthy%2Bpreterm%2Binfants%2Bthat%2Bshortens%2Btime%2Bto%2Boral%2Bfeeding.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1067%252Fmpd.2001.117077%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F11562616%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1067/mpd.2001.117077&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=11562616&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febnurs%2F5%2F3%2F74.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000171273300009&link_type=ISI
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".