Feeding disorders in children with oesophageal atresia: a cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: With advances in surgical and neonatal care, the survival of patients with oesophageal atresia (OA) has improved over time. Whereas a number of OA-related conditions (delayed primary anastomosis, anastomotic stricture and oesophageal dysmotility) may have an impact on feeding development and although children with OA experience several oral aversive events, paediatric feeding disorders (PFD) remain poorly described in this population. The primary aim of our study was to describe PFD in children born with OA, using a standardised scale. The secondary aim was to determine conditions associated with PFD. METHODS: The Feeding Disorders in Children with Oesophageal Atresia Study is a national cohort study based on the OA registry from the French National Network. Parents of children born with OA between 2013 and 2016 in one of the 22 participating centres were asked to complete the French version of the Montreal Children's Hospital Feeding Scale. RESULTS: Of the 248 eligible children, 145 children, with a median age of 2.3 years (Q1-Q3 1.8-2.9, min-max 1.1-4.0 years), were included. Sixty-one children (42%) developed PFD; 13% were tube-fed (n=19). Almost 40% of children with PFD failed to thrive (n=23). The presence of chronic respiratory symptoms was associated with the development of PFD. Ten children with PFD (16%) had no other condition or OA-related complication. CONCLUSION: PFD are common in children with OA, and there is no typical profile of patients at risk of PFD. Therefore, all children with OA require a systematic screening for PFD that could improve the care and outcomes of patients, especially in terms of growth.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".