MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

343 A Randomised Trial of Two Techniques of Bottle Feeding for Preterm Infants

2012· article· en· W2334986762 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer A. Dawson, Lawrence W. Myers, Anita M. Moorhead, Susan E Jacobs, Katherine Ong, Frances Salo, Peter G. Davis

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Disease in Childhood · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfant Development and Preterm Care
Canadian institutionsRoyal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGestationPediatricsBottleGestational agePulse oximetryNeonatologyCrossover studyMorningAnesthesiaPregnancyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and Aims Preterm infants will begin the transition from tube to suck feeds at ~34 weeks’ corrected age. Our aim was to compare physiological stability in two positions for bottle feeding preterm infants, the “cradle hold” versus a “side-lying” position. Methods Randomised crossover trial of infants < 34 weeks’ gestation at birth, ≥ 34 weeks’ corrected gestation at study, receiving ≥ two sucking feeds/day. Feeds were studied on successive days. A pulse oximeter (PO) measured oxygen saturation (SpO2) and heart rate(HR), before, during and for 30 minutes after feeds. Continuous data were compared with paired t-tests, proportions compared with Χ2. Results 25 study infants were, mean (SD) 29(3)weeks gestation and 1158(479)g at birth and mean (SD) 37(2.4) wks corrected age and 2740 (589)g at study. Eight study infants were receiving oxygen or respiratory support. In these 8 infants 5/8 (62%) versus 7/8 (87%) in side and cradle feeding positions experienced a SpO2 < 80% (p=0.25) during study feeds. Conclusions Little difference in physiological stability was seen between the two bottle feeding positions. Both methods may be appropriate for the transition from tube to bottle feeding in preterm infants.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.277 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Disease in ChildhoodSame topicInfant Development and Preterm CareFrench-language works237,207