Interventions to Enhance Achievement to Independent Oral Feeds in Premature Infants: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To assess the effectiveness of interventions aimed at facilitating the transition from full tube to independent oral feeds in premature infants. METHODS: Scoping review methodology using the Preferred Reporting items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA_ScR). A search of six databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science, COCHRANE, and OT Seeker), using keywords related to oral feeding and premature infants retrieved 11,870 articles. Full-text screening was completed for 36 articles, and 21 articles were included in this review. RESULTS: = 1). Oral stimulation had the most studies with consistent evidence supporting its beneficial effect to facilitate achievement to independent oral feeds, swallow/gustatory stimulation appeared to have some benefit, but evidence for olfactory, tactile/kinesthetic, and auditory stimulation was sparse. CONCLUSION: Oral stimulation has the most studies with consistent evidence, and thus is suggested as a suitable early intervention strategy that can be used by health providers to facilitate the achievement to independent oral feeds in premature infants. The alternate forms of stimulation have limited evidence and necessitate further studies to confirm their benefits.
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 | 0.008 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".