Tongue-tie division. Is it worth it? A retrospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Breastfeeding is a complex process, influenced by various factors. Tongue tie may be an impediment to breastfeeding, so division of tongue tie (frenotomy) is routinely recommended to improve breastfeeding. Aims: This study aimed to assess the value of frenotomy based on its impact on breastfeeding-related problems. Methods: A 1-year retrospective cohort study was undertaken of all the patients referred to a London-based tongue-tie service with breastfeeding difficulties. A telephone survey was performed using a standardised questionnaire. Findings: The rate of exclusively breastfed babies increased from 36.7% before frenotomy to 53.8% at 48 hours post-procedure. All the breastfeeding-related problems significantly reduced by 48 hours post-procedure. There was no major bleeding, infection or ulceration reported. Of babies that had frenotomy, 3.2% underwent a second procedure. Conclusions: Frenotomy is a well-tolerated surgical procedure accompanied by very low complication rates. It significantly increases the exclusive breastfeeding rate in the short-term period and reduces breastfeeding-related problems.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".