Effect of Unimodal and Multimodal Sensorimotor Interventions on Oral Feeding Outcomes in Preterm Infants
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Preterm infants often experience difficulty with the transition from tube to oral feeding. While many unimodal and multimodal sensorimotor interventions have been generated to optimize oral feeding skills, there has been little cohesion between interventions. PURPOSE: The aims of this systematic review were to examine the effect of sensorimotor interventions on oral feeding outcomes and to determine whether multimodal interventions lead to better oral feeding performances than unimodal interventions. SEARCH STRATEGY: A systematic search of CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO databases was conducted. Studies were reviewed to assess the types of interventions used to improve transition to full oral feeding, volume intake, weight gain, and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: The search identified 35 articles. Twenty-six studies examined a unimodal intervention, with the majority focusing on oral sensorimotor input and the others on tactile, auditory, and olfactory input. Nine studies assessed multimodal interventions, with the combination of tactile and kinesthetic stimulation being most common. Results varied across studies due to large differences in methodology, and caution is warranted when interpreting results across studies. The heterogeneity in the studies made it difficult to make any firm conclusions about the effects of sensorimotor interventions on feeding outcomes. Overall, evidence on whether multimodal approaches can lead to better oral feeding outcomes than a unimodal approach was insufficient. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The use of sensorimotor interventions to optimize feeding outcomes in preterm infants varies based on methods used and modalities. These factors warrant caution by clinicians who use sensorimotor interventions in the neonatal intensive care unit. IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH: Large randomized clinical trials using a standardized approach for the administration of sensorimotor input are needed to further establish the effects on feeding outcomes in preterm infants.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it