A cross‐sectional study of breastfed infants referred for tongue tie assessment and frenotomy in one Canadian health region
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Importance Tongue tie (TT) is a condition that can cause infant feeding difficulties due to restricted tongue movement. When TT presents as a significant barrier to breastfeeding, a frenotomy may be recommended. Universally accepted diagnostic criteria for TT are lacking and wide prevalence estimates are reported. New referral processes and a Frenotomy Assessment Tool were implemented in one Canadian health region to connect breastfeeding dyads with a provider for TT evaluation and frenotomy. Objective To determine the proportion of babies with TT as well as the frequency of frenotomy. Methods This cross‐sectional study included infants who initiated breastfeeding at birth and were referred for TT evaluation over a 14‐month period. Data were collected retrospectively by chart review and analyzed using SPSS. Factors associated with frenotomy were examined using logistic regression. Results Two hundred and forty‐one babies were referred. Ninety‐two percent ( n = 222) were diagnosed with TT and 66.0% ( n = 159) underwent frenotomy. In the multivariate model, nipple pain/trauma, inability to latch, inability to elevate tongue, and dimpling of tongue on extension were associated with frenotomy ( P < 0.05). Most referrals in our region resulted in a diagnosis of TT; however, the number of referrals was lower than expected, and of these two‐thirds underwent frenotomy. Interpretation TT is a relatively common finding among breastfed infants. Future research should examine whether a simplified assessment tool containing the four items associated with frenotomy in our multivariate model can identify breastfed infants with TT who require frenotomy.
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) | 0.000 | 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".