Nutritional versus behavioural intervention in children with avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The aim of the study was to determine the effectiveness of nutritional intervention compared to behavioural intervention to increase food acceptance and improve the nutritional status among children with avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder. Method: Six participants (3–4 years old) diagnosed with avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder took part in the study. They were randomly assigned to one of the two interventions, either a nutritional or behavioural approach. Results: The percentage of food acceptance increased for patients in the behavioural intervention group, but not for the nutritional intervention group (until later implementation of behavioural intervention). Moreover, the z-score for body mass index increased only after implementing behavioural intervention. The total score on the Montreal Children’s Hospital Feeding Scale decreased only after implementation of intervention based on behavioural approach. Inappropriate mealtime behaviour decreased across all participants after implementation of behavioural intervention. Discussion: Behavioural intervention seems to be promising for children with avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder to increase the oral intake of solid food and improve their 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".