What is tongue-tie and does it interfere with breast-feeding? – a brief review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The most common symptom attributed to ankyloglossia is difficulty breast feeding due to poor latch, inefficient milk extraction and/or maternal nipple pain. During the past two decades, despite a declining birth rate, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of infants diagnosed with and treated for ankyloglossia in the United States, Canada and Australia. Despite a dramatic increase in the diagnosis and treatment of ankyloglossia in these countries, there remains no universally agreed upon definition of ankyloglossia and none of the published scoring systems have been rigorously validated. However ankyloglossia is defined, the majority of infants with ankyloglossia are asymptomatic. Perhaps, infants with ankyloglossia have a greater incidence of difficulty breast feeding. Lingual frenulotomy may decrease maternal pain and at least transiently improve the quality of breast feeding in some infants however no published studies take into account the fact that sucking and feeding are soothing to infants and the observed improvements immediately following frenulotomy may be a response to the pain associated with the procedure rather than a result of the procedure itself. While there are almost certainly some infants in whom tongue-tie interferes with breast-feeding, there is currently no good evidence lingual frenulotomy leads to longer duration of breast-feeding. Frenulotomy appears to be a generally safe procedure however there are reports of serious complications. Finally, there are no studies of long-term outcomes following frenulotomy during infancy and given traditional thinking that the lingual frenulum is a cord of connective tissue tethering the tongue to the floor of the mouth may be incorrect and the frenulum contains motor and sensory branches of the lingual nerve, the procedure may be less benign than previously thought.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".