Tongue-tie division. Is it worth it? A retrospective cohort study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it