RAISE (Raising Infants to Be Smart Eaters) Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Many of the complex determinants of obesity originate during infancy when small changes in the environment can permanently influence appetite, behavior, and energy metabolism. Parent feeding style (“how” rather than “what” to feed) has emerged as a potentially important factor in early obesity prevention. Objectives: (1) To assess the feasibility of conducting a brief responsive feeding education intervention by public health nurses during routine well-baby visits. (2) To assess whether this intervention affects parents' attitudes and behavior related to responsive feeding. Methods: Prospective, nonrandomized, comparative pilot study conducted in two communities. Intervention participants were exposed to enhanced responsive feeding education by public health nurses at routine well-baby visits from 0 to 18 months along with wall posters, handouts, automated text messages and tangible takeaways. Parent knowledge and behavior were measured using the Infant Feeding Style Questionnaire and the Toddler Development Index. Feasibility and acceptability were assessed by patients and nurses through open text feedback forms and mid-point and exit interviews. Results: Recruitment (18 intervention; 9 control) and retention fell below targets. Average adherence to protocol by nurses from 0 to 12 months was 89%. Delivery of the intervention was feasible and acceptable, but the additional research-related tasks were challenging in a busy clinical setting. Parents found the different formats and information new and helpful. There was a trend toward less nonresponsive (pressuring, restrictive, laissez-faire) feeding practices in the intervention group. Conclusions: This pilot study demonstrated encouraging results related to overall feasibility and effect on parent feeding style.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".