MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Relation between objectively measured feeding competence and nutrition in children with cerebral palsy

2001· article· en· W4253538708 on OpenAlexfundno aff
K E V Troughton, Alesha Hill

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Medicine & Child Neurology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersQueen's University
KeywordsCerebral palsyMedicineMalnutritionDiplegiaPediatricsCircumferenceSkinfold thicknessMalnutrition in childrenPhysical therapyAnthropometryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of undernutrition in children with cerebral palsy (CP) and to determine the relation with feeding ability. Ninety children with CP from special needs schools were examined. Undernutrition was diagnosed on one or more of the following criteria: weight <2nd centile, triceps or subscapular skinfold measurement < 3rd centile, mid‐arm circumference <5th centile. Feeding competence was scored with respect to seven specific oromotor tasks using the Multidisciplinary Feeding Profile. Thirty‐six participants (40%) had diplegia, 29 (33%) quadriplegia, 13 (14%) hemiplegia, and 12 participants (13%) had dyskinetic CP. Age ranged from 2.6 to 18.7 years (mean 10.8 years). Forty‐six percent (41 of 90) were undernourished. In all aspects of feeding, those undernourished had lower feeding competence scores compared to adequately nourished children ( p <0.002). Each modality of feeding competence correlated significantly to the centiles of weight, triceps or subscapular skinfold measurement and mid‐arm circumference ( p <0.02). A positive association of weight, triceps skinfold measurement, and mid‐arm circumference with chewing ability was present independent of other feeding modalities ( p <0.05). Undernutrition was common in this group and was associated with poorer feeding ability.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.803

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations71
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental Medicine & Child NeurologySame topicCerebral Palsy and Movement DisordersFrench-language works237,207