A Unique Clinical Tool for the Evaluation of Oral Feeding Skills in Infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Occupational therapy practice for oral feeding assessment is based on clinical observation of infants’ sucking, swallowing, and breathing ability, which is influenced by clinical experience and provides poor evidence on explanatory factors. Purpose. To test the clinical utility and safety of a nipple monitoring device for the quantitative evaluation of oral feeding skills. Method. Sixteen infants, with no severe medical complications, participated in a pre-experimental pilot study. Oral feeding performances (duration, intake volume, and rate of transfer), and occurrence of adverse events (apnea, bradycardia, and oxygen desaturations) were recorded to ensure the tool does not interfere with infant's feeding ability or does not create any adverse effects. Findings. There was no significant difference in duration, intake volume, rate of transfer between the two monitored sessions, and no occurrence in adverse events. Implications. The findings suggest that the nipple monitoring device may be used for quantitative assessment and intervention planning of oral feeding difficulties in infants.
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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".