Acidity of Enteral Feeding Tube Aspirate in Neonates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Enteral feeding tubes (EFTs) are commonly used in neonatal practice, but complications from tube misplacement remain a concern. Measuring the pH of EFT aspirate is a recommended method to evaluate EFT placement. A pH value of ≤5.5 is considered predictive of gastric placement. Using this method in infants has been questioned. It is unclear whether infants can produce adequate gastric acid to achieve a pH 5 or less and whether feedings and medications influence pH. PURPOSE: To report EFT aspirate pH values in infants and to evaluate factors potentially influencing pH values. METHODS: A retrospective descriptive study was conducted with 1024 infants with 6979 pH values. Demographic and clinical data were collected including type of EFT, pH of gastric aspirate, feeding method, time of last feeding, and administration of acid suppression medications. The frequency of measured pH values of 5 or less was calculated for each covariate. FINDINGS/RESULTS: The majority (97.51%) of pH values were 5 or less. Orogastric tubes, continuous feeding, a 4-hour or more feeding interval, exposure to medications (proton pump inhibitor, histamine-2 receptor antagonist, or multiple medications) were associated with an increased likelihood of pH values of more than 5. However, with each study variable the majority of pH values were 5 or less. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: These findings suggest EFT pH, a recommended method to evaluate the likelihood of gastric placement, can be successfully used in the neonatal population. IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH: Future research should prospectively evaluate EFT pH in infants when compared with clinically indicated radiographs. Other factors that might influence pH should be explored including severity of illness, feeding type, and other medications.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".