Feeding Post-Pyloromyotomy: A Meta-analysis
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
CONTEXT: Postoperative emesis is common after pyloromyotomy. Although postoperative feeding is likely to be an influencing factor, there is no consensus on optimal feeding. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of feeding regimens on clinical outcomes of infants after pyloromyotomy. DATA SOURCES: Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and Medline. STUDY SELECTION: Two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion based on a priori inclusion criteria. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted on methodological quality, general study and intervention characteristics, and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Fourteen studies were included. Ad libitum feeding was associated with significantly shorter length of stay (LOS) when compared with structured feeding (mean difference [MD] -4.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], -8.38 to -0.95; P = .01). Although gradual feeding significantly decreased emesis episodes (MD -1.70; 95% CI, -2.17 to -1.23; P < .00001), rapid feeding led to significantly shorter LOS (MD 22.05; 95% CI, 2.18 to 41.93; P = .03). Late feeding resulted in a significant decrease in number of patients with emesis (odds ratio 3.13; 95% CI, 2.26 to 4.35; P < .00001). LIMITATIONS: Exclusion of non-English studies, lack of randomized controlled trials, insufficient number of studies to perform publication bias or subgroup analysis for potential predictors of emesis. CONCLUSIONS: Ad libitum feeding is recommended for patients after pyloromyotomy as it leads to decreased LOS. If physicians still prefer structured feeding, early rapid feeds are recommended as they should lead to a reduced LOS.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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