Effect of Single-Use, Laser-Cut, Slow-Flow Nipples on Respiration and Milk Ingestion in Preterm Infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Single-use, laser-cut, slow-flow nipples were evaluated for their effect on respiration and milk ingestion in 13 healthy preterm infants (32.7-37.1 weeks postmenstrual age) under nonlaboratory, clinical conditions. METHOD: The primary outcomes of minute ventilation and overall milk transfer were measured by using integrated nasal airflow and volume-calibrated bottles during suck bursts and suck burst breaks during slow-flow and standard-flow nipple bottle feedings. Wilcoxon signed-ranks tests were used to test the effect of nipple type on both outcomes. RESULTS: Prefeeding minute ventilation decreased significantly during suck bursts and returned to baseline values during suck burst breaks across both slow-flow and standard-flow nipples. No differences were found in minute ventilation (p > .40) or overall milk transfer (p = .58) between slow-flow and standard-flow nipples. CONCLUSIONS: The lack of difference in primary outcomes between the single-use slow-flow and standard-flow nipples may reflect variability in nipple properties among nipples produced by the same manufacturer. Future investigations examining the effect of both single-use and reusable nipple products are warranted to better guide nipple selection during clinical care.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".