Tongue-tie and breastfeeding problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tongue-tie (ankyloglossia) in babies is common and characterised by a short lingual frenulum that may restrict tongue tip mobility (Figure 1). 1 Reported incidence varies from around 4%-11%, and is thought to be increasing because of widening definitions of tongue-tie. 2 With over 680 000 live births in the UK each year, around 60 000 babies may have tongue-tie, some of whose mothers will have difficulty breastfeeding and seek support from a health professional. 2,3However, most infants (75%) with tongue-tie are asymptomatic and do not have feeding problems. 1n high-income countries, rates of tongue- tie operations (frenotomy/ frenulectomy -the surgical division of the lingual frenulum) have more than quadrupled over 10 years. 4,5Operation rates are higher in babies of first-time mothers who are more affluent and/or have private health insurance. 5Although frenotomy may reduce nipple pain in mothers, a Cochrane Review found no robust evidence that it improves long-term successful breastfeeding. 4,5 LACK OF CONSENSUS ON MANAGEMENT OF TONGUE-TIEThere is a lack of agreement about diagnosis and treatment of tongue-tie both
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 | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| 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".