Feeding Challenges in Trisomy 21: Prevalence and Characteristics of Feeding Disorders and Food Neophobia—A Cross-Sectional Study of Polish Children and Adolescents with Down Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Food neophobia, defined as reluctance to try new foods, may lead to nutritional deficiencies and complicate dietary management—especially in individuals with Down syndrome, who often present with oral-motor dysfunction. This condition may result in nutritional deficiencies and difficulties in adhering to dietary recommendations, particularly in individuals with comorbidities. In individuals with Down syndrome (DS), who frequently present with oral motor disorders and chronic diseases, the problem may be especially pronounced. Objectives: The aim of the study was to assess the risk of food neophobia and feeding difficulties in children, adolescents, and young adults with Down syndrome, as well as their associations with age, gender, and body weight. Methods: The research was conducted using the CAWI method among 310 caregivers of individuals with DS in Poland. Two validated tools were employed: the Montreal Children’s Hospital Feeding Scale (MCH-FS) and the Food Neophobia Scale for Children (FNSC). Body mass index (BMI), comorbidities, and demographic data were also analyzed. Results: Findings revealed that the majority of participants (55.2%) had normal body weight, while 19.4% were undernourished and 6.5% were classified as obese. Feeding difficulties of moderate to very high severity were reported in 26.5% of the participants. A high risk of food neophobia was identified in 41.3% of respondents, most frequently in the preschool age group. A statistically significant association was observed between age and the severity of both feeding difficulties and neophobia (p < 0.05). However, no significant relationships were found with gender or body weight. Conclusions: Feeding difficulties and food neophobia are prevalent among individuals with Down syndrome, particularly in preschool-aged children. The findings highlight the necessity of an interdisciplinary therapeutic approach and the individualization of dietary interventions, taking developmental age into account. Further studies are warranted, with consideration of environmental and psychosocial factors.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".