MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206029029 · doi:10.1080/17518423.2021.2011975

Investigating the Developmental Trajectory of Long-term Oral Feeding Problems in ‘Healthy’ Preterm Infants

2022· article· en· W4206029029 on OpenAlexaff
Layne Robinson, Lydia Heng, Sandra Fucile

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Neurorehabilitation · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfant Development and Preterm Care
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCryingMedicinePediatricsLongitudinal studyRehabilitationGestational ageGestationProspective cohort studyPhysical therapyPregnancyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To investigate the occurrence of oral feeding problems in preterm infants up to one year after hospital discharge. METHODS: Thirty-six infants born <34 weeks gestation were enrolled in a prospective exploratory longitudinal pilot study prior to hospital discharge. Parents of eligible infants completed telephone questionnaires at 3, 6, and 12 months corrected gestational age. The occurrence and type of feeding problems; medical problems; and rehabilitation services received were collected. RESULTS: A total of 26 (72.2%) parents responded, with 11 (42%) identifying feeding problems that developed within the first year of life. Avoidant behavior (including crying, agitated/fussy, and refusing to eat) was the most common feeding problem that occurred. CONCLUSION: Feeding problems in 'healthy' preterm infants may occur at any point in development within the first year of life. Increased screening after hospitalization is needed for early identification and to make appropriate referrals in a timely manner to prevent and/or reduce the severity of long-term feeding problems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental NeurorehabilitationSame topicInfant Development and Preterm CareFrench-language works237,207