Feeding Interventions for Children With Cerebral Palsy: A Review of the Evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To examine the evidence of the effectiveness of different feeding interventions for children with cerebral palsy. METHODS: A search of 12 electronic databases identified all relevant studies. For each study, the quality of the methods was assessed according to the study design. A total of 33 articles were retrieved, and 21 studies were included in the final analysis. RESULTS: Feeding interventions were separated into five main categories: oral sensorimotor facilitation, food consistency, positioning, oral appliances, and adaptive equipment. Five studies were randomized controlled trials. Outcomes were mainly reported on feeding safety and efficiency. One study documented positive results in height and weight change. Nineteen of the 21 studies presented positive outcomes in eating efficiency and/or safety. INTERPRETATION: Feeding interventions demonstrate potential benefits for children with cerebral palsy. However, the current level of evidence is poor, and empirical data are lacking. Methodologically, rigorous studies are required particularly investigating multimodal approaches.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".