MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4320918921 · doi:10.3389/fped.2023.1115787

Oral exploration and food selectivity: A case-control study conducted in a multidisciplinary outpatient setting

2023· article· en· W4320918921 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
M. Bellaïche, Véronique Leblanc, Jérôme Viala, Camille Jung

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Pediatrics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChild Nutrition and Feeding Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePediatricsMultidisciplinary teamMultidisciplinary approachPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Pediatric feeding disorders (PFDs) are common, and their great phenotypic variability reflects the breadth of the associated nosological profiles. PFDs should be assessed and managed by multidisciplinary teams. Our study aimed to describe clinical signs of feeding difficulties in a group of PFD patients assessed by such a team, and to compare them with children in a control group. Methods In this case-control study, case group patients 1 to 6 years old were consecutively recruited through the multidisciplinary unit for the treatment of pediatric feeding difficulties based at Robert Debré Teaching Hospital in Paris, France. Children with an encephalopathy, severe neurometabolic disorder, or genetic syndrome (suspected or confirmed) were excluded. Members of the control group, consisting of children with no feeding difficulties (i.e., Montreal Children's Hospital Feeding Scale scores below 60) or severe chronic diseases, were recruited from a day care center and 2 kindergartens. Data from medical histories and clinical examination related to mealtime practices, oral motor skills, neurodevelopment, sensory processing, and any functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGIDs) were recorded and compared between groups. Results In all, 244 PFD cases were compared with 109 controls (mean ages: cases, 3.42 [±1.47]; controls, 3.32 [±1.17]; P = 0.55). Use of distractions during meals was much more among PFD children (cases, 77.46%; controls, 5.5%; P < 0.001), as was conflict during meals. While the groups did not differ in their members’ hand-mouth coordination or ability to grab objects, cases began exploring their environments later; mouthing, especially, was less common in the case group (cases, n = 80 [32.92%]; controls, n = 102 [94.44%]; P < 0.001). FGIDs and signs of visual, olfactory, tactile, and oral hypersensitivity were significantly more frequent among cases. Conclusion Initial clinical assessments showed that, in the children with PFDs, normal stages of environmental exploration were altered, and that this was often associated with signs of sensory hypersensitivity and digestive discomfort.

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)0.001
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 score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score0.559

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PediatricsSame topicChild Nutrition and Feeding IssuesFrench-language works237,207