Absence of Effect of Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure on the Esophageal Phase of Nutritive Swallowing in Newborn Lambs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: It is presently recommended that oral feeding be started in premature infants as soon as possible, often at an age at which nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) is still required for ventilatory support. Our previous data showed that application of nCPAP up to 10 cmH2O in full-term lambs had no deleterious effect on cardiorespiratory safety, feeding efficiency, or on nutritive swallowing-breathing coordination. Besides fear of swallowing-breathing coordination disturbances, esophageal motility disruption by nCPAP could be a reason to delay oral feeding. To our knowledge, no study has focused on the effects of nCPAP on esophageal motility in the neonatal period. The aim of the present study was therefore to further assess the effects of nCPAP on oral feeding by assessing its effects on the esophageal phase of nutritive swallowing (nutritive esophagodeglutition). METHODS: Six full-term lambs, ages 2 to 3 days, underwent esophageal multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH monitoring. Lambs were bottle-fed under 2 randomized conditions, namely spontaneous breathing and nCPAP 6 cmH(2)O. RESULTS: Beyond confirmation of unaltered feeding efficiency, analysis of multiple variables measured by impedance monitoring revealed that nCPAP 6 does not alter nutritive esophagodeglutition in any way (nCPAP vs spontaneous breathing, P > 0.1 for all variables). CONCLUSIONS: offering further support to neonatologists pleading for initiation of oral feeding in infants still on nCPAP, the present results set the foundations for similar clinical studies in preterm human infants to confirm the absence of effects of nCPAP on nutritive swallowing.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".