MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403514591 · doi:10.1002/jpr3.12136

Feeding difficulties, food intake, and growth in children with esophageal atresia

2024· article· en· W4403514591 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kjersti Birketvedt, Audun Mikkelsen, Helle Schiørbeck, Hanneke IJsselstijn, Christine Henriksen, Ragnhild Emblem

Bibliographic record

VenueJPGN Reports · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEsophageal and GI Pathology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHaukeland UniversitetssjukehusUniversitetet i Bergen
KeywordsMedicinePediatricsEarly feedingCohortProspective cohort studyStandard scoreMedical recordInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objectives Challenges regarding feeding difficulties and nutrition in children with esophageal atresia (EA) have been sparsely studied. The aim of this study was to explore parent‐reported feeding difficulties in children with EA by applying Montreal Children's Hospital‐Feeding Scale (MCH‐FS), and to further explore associations between feeding difficulties and clinical factors, growth and nutritional intake. Methods Parents of EA children born between 2012 and 2017 were invited. Clinical data were collected from medical records. In a prospective cohort‐study parent‐reported feeding difficulties (by MCH‐FS) were reported at two assessments, and at the second assessment, dietary data were collected by using the 24‐h food‐recall method. Results Out of 55 eligible participants, we evaluated 53 children at median age of 1.6 years (Q1:Q3 1.0:2.9) (first assessment) and 38 at median age of 4.2 years (Q1:Q3 1.0:2.9) (second assessment). Feeding difficulties were reported by 34% and 31% of the parents, respectively, but no particular profile of concerns could be identified. Children's energy intake and weight‐for‐age were correlated with feeding difficulties (MCH‐FS total score) ( p < 0.02). Conclusion Parent‐reported feeding difficulties were identified in one‐third of children with EA and related to low energy intake and low weight‐for‐age, but not to clinical factors. This implies that feeding difficulties must be screened for during follow‐up in all EA children and may facilitate early detection of challenges and intervention if needed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.449

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJPGN ReportsSame topicEsophageal and GI PathologyFrench-language works237,207