Neurodevelopmental, cognitive and motor function: Practice recommendations in pediatric intestinal failure and transplantation- position statement of the International Intestinal Rehabilitation and Transplant Association allied health committee
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The objective of this position statement was to provide evidence-based and expert-informed recommendations for the assessment and treatment of neurodevelopment in children with intestinal failure and those undergoing intestinal transplant. Material and methods: A literature review was conducted to identify and review research articles from 2000 to 2023 that reported on neurodevelopmental, neurocognitive and motor outcomes in children (0-18 years) with intestinal failure or intestinal transplant. Key recommendations to address these outcomes were made based on scientific evidence and expert-informed opinion. Results: The impact of intestinal failure and transplant on developmental outcomes was established, along with key risk factors related to the disease that may result in poorer outcomes. The involvement of rehabilitation specialists was recommended as part of the multidisciplinary intestinal care team to provide assessment and treatment across all developmental domains from infancy onwards. Care teams should provide close follow-up which may include screening during out-patient clinic follow up, along with timely community referrals to address developmental delays. Children undergoing intestinal or multi-visceral transplant require assessment and treatment both pre and post-transplant to maximize developmental outcomes. Conclusions: This position paper reviews available literature related to developmental outcomes in intestinal failure and transplant, delineating risk factors which may contribute to poorer outcomes. It lays the foundation for tangible steps to assist intestinal care teams in advocating for the services of rehabilitation team members to provide ongoing assessment and treatment to optimize clinical outcomes.
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 | 0.027 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".