Risk Factors Associated With Long-term Feeding Problems 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: Infants who are born preterm are at a high risk of encountering feeding problems. PURPOSE: The aim of this scoping review is to identify risk factors associated with feeding problems that persist beyond infancy in children (aged 1-6 years) who were born preterm (<37 weeks' gestation). METHODS: To perform this scoping review, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses framework was applied. To be included in this study, articles had to be published in peer-reviewed journals, had an empirical study design, examined feeding problems relating to the child's feeding ability or refusal to eat certain texture of foods, and assessed risk factors (age, weight, and medical conditions) associated with long-term feeding problems in children who were born preterm. RESULTS: After abstract and full-text screening, a total of 9 articles meeting the inclusion criteria were included in this study. Findings from this study identified that gestational age and birth weight are significant risk factors and that sex, duration of mechanical ventilation, and length of tube feedings are potential risk factors. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This study confirms that younger and smaller infants are at a high risk of encountering oral feeding difficulties and early interventions services should be focused on these preterm infants. IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH: Evaluation of timing and intensity (dose) of early interventions strategies should be investigated to provide more targeted and effective interventions for younger and smaller 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it