Distribution of Feeding Styles after Pyloromyotomy among Pediatric Surgical Training Programs in North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The feeding regimen employed after pyloromyotomy for pyloric stenosis continues to be a topic of debate and has yet to be evaluated in a prospective, randomized trial. To understand the spectrum of current feeding schedules being utilized in the various training programs, we queried the program directors or representatives about their feeding schedules. METHODS: Through the use of multiple electronic communication resources, we surveyed 47 pediatric training programs in the United States and Canada about their postpyloromyotomy feeding schedules. Questions included time to first feed, how the schedule is advanced, and criteria for stopping feeds and discharge. RESULTS: Responses were received from 34 of the 47 institutions. Six programs had variable times of delay before instituting feeding whether ad libitum (ad lib) or protocol. The average time of delay was 4.3 hours. Six programs reported both ad lib feed and protocol feeding regiments. Twelve institutions used ad lib feeding regiments. Eight started feeding without delay. Twenty-six programs including our institution currently employ a protocol-based feeding regiment. Of these programs, seven begin the protocol without delay. CONCLUSIONS: Despite retrospective evidence in support of ad lib feeds after pyloromyotomy, the majority of teaching institutions employs protocols for the postpyloromyotomy feeding schedule. There is clearly a role for a prospective, randomized trial to compare ad lib to schedule feeding.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".