The Ingestion Question: Public Knowledge of Safe Food Introduction in Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: National guidelines advise delaying initiation of solid foods until after 4-6 months of age and avoiding "high-risk" foods under the age of 4 years. However, foreign body aspiration of food remains a common preventable pediatric emergency. Our primary aim was to investigate public knowledge regarding the safe age of introduction of different foods to children and determine if demographic factors affect this knowledge. METHODS: An online survey was designed following a literature review and consultation with an expert panel. This was distributed via social media platforms. A review of our institutional data of bronchoscopy/foreign body retrievals was performed to identify trends. RESULTS: There were 1000 survey responses: 79.4% of respondents cared for children and 21.5% were medical professionals; 37.7% of respondents (n = 385) would offer high-risk foods to children <2 years of age and 56.9% (n = 582) to children <3 years. At our institution nuts (65.7%) were the most common food-related foreign body retrieved from a total of 265 over 21 years. Notably, 80% of respondents (n = 800) would offer whole nuts to children <4 years. Respondents with medical training were more likely to hold off on introducing nuts to children until a later age. CONCLUSION: Although the public has an overall appreciation of food safety, a significant proportion would feel comfortable offering high-risk foods to children under 2 and 3 years. There is a poor understanding of the danger of nuts and the appropriate age of introduction. Further research into effective public education strategies on safe food introduction in children are warranted. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 5 Laryngoscope, 135:445-451, 2025.
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 | 0.006 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.003 |
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".