187: Gastrostomy Tube Feeding After Neonatal Complex Cardiac Surgery Identifies the Need for Early Developmental Intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Early Developmental Intervention (EDI) is known to have long-term positive outcomes across developmental domains. Gastrostomy feeding is indicated in children with swallowing difficulties to prevent aspiration and lung disease; and to enhance growth and nutrition. To compare the proportion of different types of developmental delay in Complex Cardiac Surgery (CCS) survivors with and without gastrostomy feeding tube, in order to determine if the presence of gastrostomy in infants after CCS identifies the need for EDI. 387 survivors requiring early CCS with cardiopulmonary-bypass at the Stollery Children's Hospital (2004–2012) were assessed at 21+ 3 months of age with the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development, 3rd edition and the Adaptive Behavior Assessment System-II: self-care skills and General Adaptive Composite (GAC). Delay was determined by scores >2 SD below mean. Fisher Exact test compared groups. Ninety-four (24.3%) of survivors had gastrostomy. In comparison to those without gastrostomy (n=293) cognitive delay occurred in 21 (22.3%) vs. 12 (4.1%); language, 32 (34%) vs. 38 (13%); motor, 28 (29.8%) vs. 13 (4.4%); all P<0.001. Children with gastrostomy had 6.6 times more delay on the GAC, and five times more delay on self-care skills than those without. The presence of gastrostomy in this population strongly suggests CCS survivors should be referred for EDI. The major contribution of this study is a simple way to enhance prompt identification of at risk survivors after CCS in order to maximize the benefits of EDI.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".