MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2556041297 · doi:10.82308/5533

Pre-feeding sensorimotor stimulation as an early intervention strategy to enhance oral feeding skills in preterm infants

2008· article· en· W2556041297 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Sandra Fucile

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChild Nutrition and Feeding Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institutes of HealthNational Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentMcGill UniversityTexas Children's Hospital
KeywordsIntervention (counseling)StimulationMedicineDevelopmental psychologyPsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPediatricsNeurosciencePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Preterm infants are at high risk of encountering oral feeding difficulties. Safe and successful oral feeding entails the ability to coordinate suck, swallow, and respiration processes. Achievement of such coordination necessitates the function of multiple systems, including musculoskeletal, cardio-respiratory, gastrointestinal, behavioral, and neurological. Hence, oral feeding difficulties may ensue from oral and non-oral origins. There is limited knowledge on the effect of oral and non-oral intervention strategies aimed at optimizing oral feeding skills in preterm infants. The objectives of this study was to investigate whether a pre-feeding uni-oral, uni-tactile/kinesthetic, and multi-oral+tactile/kinesthetic stimulation improve preterm infants' oral feeding skills, and to establish whether multi-sensorimotor interventions have an additive or synergistic effect leading to better oral feeding skills than uni-sensorimotor interventions. Seventy-five preterm infants were randomly assigned to one of 4 groups: 1) uni-oral group, consisting of stroking the lips, cheeks, gums, tongue and sucking on a pacifier; 2) uni-tactile/kinesthetic group, involving stroking the body and limbs and passive range of motion to limbs; 3) multi-oral+tactile/kinesthetic group, consisting of oral and tactile/kinesthetic stimulation as above; and 4) control group. All three experimental groups improved oral feeding performance, in particular time to attainment of independent oral feeding, proficiency and volume transfer, the uni-oral and multi-oral+tactile/kinesthetic groups increased rate of transfer, and the uni-oral group showed less volume loss (spillage) compared to controls. The underlying systems mediating the oral feeding improvements differed for each intervention. The uni-oral stimulation enhanced nutritive sucking skills, suck-swallow-respiration coordination, and growth. The uni-tactile/kinesthetic stimulation improved suck-swallow-respiration coordinati

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.645
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations6
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)Same topicChild Nutrition and Feeding IssuesFrench-language works237,207