Children born preterm and full term have similar rates of feeding problems at three years of age
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: We determined the prevalence of feeding problems and their association with perinatal risk factors in three-year-old children born preterm and compared them with a full-term reference group. METHODS: This pilot study assessed feeding problem scores in 35 preterm children, with a median gestational age of 30 weeks (range 26-32) and median birthweight of 1260 grams (730-2250), who were enrolled during their admission to a neonatal intensive care unit. These were compared with existing data on 248 term children from child healthcare centres at the age of three. We excluded children with severe perinatal complications from the reference group. The Screeningslijst Eetgedrag Peuters (SEP), a validated Dutch version of the Montreal Children's Hospital Feeding Scale, was used to identify feeding problems. RESULTS: We found no difference in SEP scores between the preterm children and the reference group (p = 0.217) and did not identify any perinatal risk factors for developing feeding problems. Only 23% of the parents of preterm or term children with moderate-to-severe feeding problems consulted a medical professional. CONCLUSION: Using a parental report instrument showed that the prevalence of feeding problems in three-year-old preterm children was low and similar to that of term children.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".