The effect of smell and taste of milk during tube feeding of preterm infants (the Taste trial): a protocol for a randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Smell and taste of milk are not generally considered when tube feeding preterm infants. Preterm infants have rapid growth, particularly of the brain, and high caloric needs. Enteral feeding is often poorly tolerated which may lead to growth failure and long-term neurodevelopmental impairment. Smell and taste are strong stimulators of digestion and metabolism. We hypothesise that regular smell and taste during tube feeding will improve weight z-scores of very preterm infants at discharge from hospital. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Taste is a randomised, unblinded two-centre trial. Infants born at <29 weeks' gestation and/or <1250 g at birth and admitted to a participating neonatal intensive care unit are eligible. Randomisation occurs before infants receive two hourly feeds for 24 hours. Infants are randomised to either smell and taste of milk with each tube feed or tube feeding without the provision of smell and taste. The primary outcome is weight z-score at discharge. Secondary outcomes include: days to full enteral feeds, duration of parenteral nutrition, rate of late-onset sepsis, post menstrual age at removal of nasogastric tube and at discharge from hospital, anthropometric data and neurodevelopmental outcomes at 2 years of corrected age. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Human Research Ethics Committees of Mater Misericordiae (trial reference number: HREC/16/MHS/112) and the Royal Women's Hospital (trial reference number: 17/21) last approved the trial protocol (version 4.2; Date: 18 December 2018) and recruitment commenced in May 2017 and November 2017, respectively. The trial results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and will be presented at national and international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12617000583347.
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 | 0.067 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.070 | 0.014 |
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".