Complementary Feeding Methods, Feeding Problems, Food Neophobia, and Picky Eating among Polish Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Proper nutrition during the first period of life is primarily related to meeting energy needs and providing essential nutrients that ensure the infant's normal physical and psychomotor development. Improper nutrition during this period, inadequate amounts of nutrients, inappropriate timing and manner of introduction of individual foods, can permanently alter metabolism and the course of physiological processes, increasing the risk of diseases such as obesity, allergic diseases, and cardiovascular diseases. This study aimed to verify how the method of complementary feeding influences the occurrence of food neophobia between 2 and 7 years of age, as well as to assess the different nutritional aspects resulting from the process of starting feeding other than breast milk and milk formula. In this study, 490 mothers and their children aged 2-7 years participated. The research tool was a questionnaire consisting of a child's dietary assessment and standardized questionnaires assessing food neophobia among children: Food Neophobia Scale for Children (FNSC) and the Montreal Children's Hospital-Pediatric Feeding (MCH-FS). In the study group of children, 238 (48.57%) had no Baby-Led Weaning Method (no BLW) method used during complementary feeding (CF), and 252 (51.42%) children used Baby-Led Weaning Method (BLW). According to the FNSC questionnaire, a high risk of food neophobia was found in 32.65% of the children studied and a medium risk in 39.80%. The medium risk of feeding problem occured in 11.63% of children, the high risk in 6.73% of children, and the highest risk in 6.94% (MCH-FS). No statistically significant differences were observed between the BLW and NoBLW groups. High risk of food neophobia occured in 1/3 of the children studied, but there was no relationship in the study group between the mode of CF (BLW/NoBLW) and the risk of food neophobia.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".