Identification of a Pivotal Period in the Oral Feeding Progression of Preterm Infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective Preterm infants are at risk of encountering oral feeding difficulties which impede on the transition to independent oral feeds. The objective of this study was to identify a pivotal period where regressions are most likely to occur during their oral feeding progression. Study Design This is a retrospective study on 101 infants born <35 weeks' gestation. The sample was separated into two groups, infants who experienced a regression during their oral feeding progression and those who did not. A pivotal period was defined as a time frame where setbacks (a decrease in oral feed attempts by one) are most likely to occur at the start (1–2 oral feed attempts per day), middle (3–5 oral feed attempts per day), or end (6–8 oral feed attempts per day) of the oral feeding progression. Result Eighty-two percent of infants experienced setbacks; 45% of all setbacks occurred at the middle time frame (p = 0.03). Infants' degree of maturity and enteral tube feeding intolerances were associated with increased occurrence of setbacks (p = 0.04). Conclusion The midpoint in the oral feeding progression is a pivotal period where setbacks are most likely to occur. This time frame can be used by clinicians to evaluate oral-motor skills for earlier provision of interventions to reduce the occurrence of oral feeding difficulties in this high-risk 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 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 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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 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".