The relation between clinically diagnosed and parent-reported feeding difficulties in children with and without clefts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P) is one of the most common craniofacial malformations, occurring worldwide in about one in 600–1000 newborn infants. CL/P is known to influence the feeding process negatively, causing feeding difficulties in 25-73% of all children with CL/P. Because there is a risk for serious complications in these children regarding feeding difficulties, there is often a need for intensive medical counseling and treatment. At this moment, adequate diagnosis and measurement remains a challenge and often leads to untimely referral to professional help. Since parents play a big part in reporting feeding difficulties it is important to help objectifying parents’ experiences, as well as the use of a frontline screening instrument for routine check-ups during medical appointments. The aim of this study is to investigate the relation between parent perspective and standardized observation by medical professionals on feeding difficulties in 60 children with and without clefts at the age of 17 months. We focus on the information from parents and health professionals by comparing the Observation List Spoon Feeding and the Schedule for Oral Motor Assessment with the validated Dutch translation of the Montreal Children’s Hospital Feeding Scale. In conclusion : There is a need for timely and adequate diagnosis and referral when it comes to feeding difficulties in children with CL/P. This study underscores the importance of combining both parental observations and measurements of oral motor skills by healthcare professionals to enable this.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".