Impact of nonnutritive oral motor stimulation and infant massage therapy on oral feeding skills of preterm infants
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We have shown that the provision of a nonnutritive oral motor therapy (NNOMT) or infant massage therapy (iMT) provided singly and in combination vs. no intervention shortens the number of days from start to independent oral feeding in very low birth weight infants. This study hypothesizes that infants who benefited from NNOMT and/or iMT will demonstrate enhanced maturation of their oral feeding skills (OFS) when compared to control counterparts. OFS levels were monitored using a recently developed scale that takes into account their nutritive sucking skills and endurance at time of assessment. It is a simple method that requires only the additional reading of the volume taken 5 minutes into the start of a feeding and information routinely recorded in patients' medical chart. Four OFS levels were identified, characterized by infant's proficiency (% volume taken during the first 5 min/volume prescribed) and rate of transfer monitored over the entire feeding session (ml/min); OFS level 1 being the most immature and 4 the most mature. In parallel with the benefits provided by NNOMT and/or iMT, we demonstrate the direct positive impact these interventions have on accelerating the maturation of infants' oral feeding skills.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it