Parent-reported feeding characteristics in children with ASD vs. children who are typically developing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Parents of children with autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) often report that their children have multiple dietary behavior problems than parents of typically developing (TD) children do. This may affect proper nutrition and subsequently adequate growth and development in children with ASD. The current study aimed to assess the feeding behavior in recently diagnosed children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) ranged in age from 2 to 4 years and compare it with typically developing (TD) children and to explore the relationship between feeding behaviors and autism severity using the Montreal Children’s Hospital Feeding Scale (MCH) and Childhood Autism Rating Scale (CARS), respectively. Parents of 35 preschool children (2–4 years) with ASD completed reports of physical measurements, feeding interview, Childhood Autism Rating Scale (CARS), and Montreal Children’s Hospital Feeding Scale (MCH Feeding-Scale). The collected data from parents of children with ASD were analyzed and compared with 70 typically developed children matched with age and sex. Results ASD children showed statistically significantly more problematic feeding behaviors in most of the assessed eating characters compared with TD children, e.g., food neophobia, eating non-food items instead of food, requiring assistance during eating, and feeding avoidance to particular textures and taste. The mean total score of the MCH feeding scale differed significantly between children with ASD and TD children. No correlation was found between the mean total score of the MCH feeding scale and CARS scores. Conclusion Our findings revealed a high rate of behavioral feeding problems in children with ASD. Future work will be needed to follow up the feeding behaviors and to develop practical feeding approaches for ASD children to maintain nutritional adequacy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".