Oral Feeding Outcomes in Infants Born With Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Breastfeeding is the optimal source of nutrition for all infants, but there are limited data on feeding outcomes in infants with neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) who are admitted in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted at a level II/III NICU. Study sample consisted infants with a diagnosis of NAS and those diagnosed with respiratory distress syndrome. The primary outcome was attainment of independent oral feeds, defined as the number of days to transition from full-tube to full oral feeds. Secondary outcomes included length of hospital stay and method (breast or bottle) of oral feeds at the start, at attainment of independent oral feeds, and at hospital discharge. RESULTS: Infants with NAS took significantly longer to attain independent oral feeds than controls ( P = .021) and received significantly fewer breastfeeds at the start of oral feeds, at independent oral feeds, and at hospital discharge ( P = .000). There was no difference in length of hospital stay between groups. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that infants with NAS can experience difficulties achieving independent oral feeds and are less likely to receive breastfeeds. Additional support is required to enhance oral feeds in infants with NAS in the NICU.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".