Oral Sensorimotor Intervention Enhances Breastfeeding Establishment in Preterm Infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of an oral sensorimotor intervention on breastfeeding establishment and maintenance in preterm infants. STUDY DESIGN: Thirty-one preterm infants born ≤34 weeks gestation were randomized into an experimental or control group. The experimental group received a 15-minute program consisting of stroking the peri-oral structures for the first 5 minutes, tongue exercises for the next 5 minutes, followed by non-nutritive sucking for the final 5 minutes. The control group received a sham intervention for the same duration. The interventions were administered once daily for 10 days. The outcomes included: time to attainment of full oral feeding, breastfeeding acquisition (i.e., ≥50% of direct breastfeeding at hospital discharge), breastfeeding skill assessment using the Preterm Infant Breastfeeding Behavior Scale (PIBBS), length of hospitalization, and breastfeeding maintenance at 3 and 6 months posthospitalization. RESULTS: Full oral feeding was attained earlier in the experimental group compared with the control (10.7 ± 2.1 vs. 19.3 ± 3.6 days, p < 0.01). This was associated with a greater number of infants in the intervention group acquiring breastfeeding at hospital discharge compared with the controls (n = 11 vs. 5, p = 0.049). There was no statistical difference in PIBBS score, length of hospitalization, and breastfeeding rates at 3 and 6 months posthospitalization between the two groups (all tests, p > 0.32). CONCLUSIONS: An oral sensorimotor intervention accelerated the achievement of full oral feeding and enhanced direct breastfeeding rates at hospital discharge only. Provision of an oral sensorimotor intervention is a safe and low-cost intervention that may increase breastfeeding rates in a highly vulnerable population.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".