A Feeding Adequacy Scale for Children With Bronchiolitis: Prospective Multicenter Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the measurement properties of the Feeding Adequacy Scale (FAS) in young children hospitalized with bronchiolitis. METHODS: Multicenter cohort study of infants hospitalized with bronchiolitis at children's and community hospitals in Ontario, Canada. Caregivers and nurses completed the FAS, a 10-cm visual analog scale anchored by "not feeding at all" (score 0) and "feeding as when healthy" (score 10). The main outcome measures were feasibility, reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the FAS. RESULTS: A total of 228 children were included with an average (SD) age of 6.3 (5.4) months. Completing the FAS was feasible for caregivers and nurses, with no floor or ceiling effects. Test-retest reliability was moderate for caregivers (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] 2,1 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63-0.80) and good for nurses (ICC 2,1 0.75; 95% CI 0.62-0.83). Interrater reliability between 1 caregiver and 1 nurse was moderate (ICC 1,1 0.55; 95% CI 0.45-0.64). For construct validity, the FAS was negatively associated with length of hospital stay and positively associated with both caregiver and nurse readiness for discharge scores (P values <.0001). The FAS demonstrated clinical improvement from the first FAS score at admission to the last FAS score at discharge, with significant differences between scores for both caregivers and nurses (P values for paired t test <.0001). CONCLUSIONS: These results provide evidence of the feasibility, reliability, validity, and responsiveness of caregiver-completed and nurse-completed FAS as a measure of feeding adequacy in children hospitalized with bronchiolitis.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".