MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3005606932 · doi:10.26076/f179-16ad

Improving Identification of Pediatric Feeding Dysfunction Among Registered Dietitian Nutritionists

2020· article· en· W3005606932 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
April Litchford

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Commons - USU (Utah State University) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChild Nutrition and Feeding Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Nuclear Safety Commission
KeywordsIdentification (biology)MedicineEnvironmental healthFamily medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

All Registered Dietitian Nutritionists (RDN) undergo extensive training to develop the ability to improve dietary intake among individuals of all ages. Treating children (0-18 years of age) is often challenging and requires specialized training. One area that is particularly challenging is identifying children that may not be able to eat appropriately to sustain rapid growth and development. An online survey of RDNs that work specifically with children was conducted to better understand how RDNs are identifying and treating children with feeding problems. From the survey we learned that the methods and procedures used by RDNs for identifying and treating children with feeding problems are variable. A review of current literature identified many tools capable of identifying children at risk for feeding problems. One of these tools was chosen and tested in a population of children 0-3 years of age who were clients of an early intervention program. Use of this tool, the Montreal Children’s Hospital Feeding Scale, increased the number of children that were identified as having feeding dysfunction and who received nutrition services. Implementing feeding dysfunction screening into children’s health care settings would improve the quality of care a child receives and help to improve their overall nutrition status.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.713

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.195 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigital Commons - USU (Utah State University)Same topicChild Nutrition and Feeding IssuesFrench-language works237,207