Feeding practices for infants with gastroschisis: A survey of neonatal intensive care units in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundFeeding practices for infants with gastroschisis are often based on institutional protocols, clinician judgement, and usual practice. The purpose of this study was to describe the range of feeding practices used in neonatal intensive care units across Canada.MethodsWe developed an 18-item survey with open-ended questions focused on feeding and nutrition among infants with gastroschisis. Clinicians from neonatal intensive care units that manage infants with gastroschisis were invited to participate. Interviews were completed via virtual meeting or email. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.ResultsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with 14 of 17 centers (82% response rate). Participants included neonatologists (12/14 centers) and dieticians (10/14 centers). Pediatric surgeons from 3/14 centers participated at the request of neonatologists. None of the centers reported using a gastroschisis feeding protocol routinely, although two centers noted occasional use of a protocol from another hospital, and another indicated that a gastroschisis feeding protocol is in development. All centers reported that patients with gastroschisis qualify for donor human milk if maternal breast milk is unavailable. Routine use of sham feeding, contrast studies, rectal irrigations, or motility agents was not reported. There was variation between centers regarding feeding advancement, type of formula used if breast milk is unavailable, use of probiotics, and strategies to introduce breastfeeding.ConclusionThere is variation in some but not all aspects of enteral feeding among infants with gastroschisis at neonatal intensive care units in Canada. The development of institutional feeding protocols and clinical practice guidelines may help standardize practice.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".