Comparison of two Specialized Cleft Palate Feeders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate feeding efficiency and weight gain in infants with cleft palate fed using 1 of the 2 specialty feeders. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Cleft palate clinic in a tertiary pediatric hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Infants with cleft palate (with or without cleft lip) fed using the Medela SpecialNeeds® Feeder (n = 39) or the Dr. Brown's® Specialty Feeding System (n = 16) and who had documented feeding and growth data available from the time of initial assessment in the first month of life and at subsequent follow-up between 2 and 4 months. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Feeding velocity (mL/min). SECONDARY OUTCOMES MEASURES: Calorie velocity (kcal/min), weight gain, and complications associated with poor feeding. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences in feeding or calorie velocities were identified between infants with cleft palate fed with the Medela SpecialNeeds® feeder and those fed with the Dr. Brown's® feeder. Mean weight z-scores by month did not differ significantly between the 2 bottle groups at the time of initial assessment (P = .84) and follow-up (P = .20). Mean weight z-scores by month for the infants included in this study fell below the 50th percentile. The proportion of infants who developed otitis media, reflux requiring treatment, or who required hospital admission for nasogastric (NG) feeds did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Despite being adequately powered for the primary outcome, no significant differences were identified between infants fed with the Medela or the Dr. Brown's feeders in terms of feeding velocity, calorie velocity, weight gain, or complications.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".