Claim

Model ledger-default@0.1.0 ledger-strict@0.1.0 ledger-default@0.2.0 ledger-strict@0.2.0 ledger-default@0.3.0 (default) ledger-strict@0.3.0 Snapshot seq

Topics

Medicine · 1efd24fe Nutrition · 1efd24fe

Assessment

Why?

Strongest counted support: The pilot found no significant differences in weight loss, length of stay, or stool frequency, while breastfeeding at discharge was more frequent with high-calorie feeds. weight 1.800000 evidence

Suppressed as dependent: The passage directly reports the randomized sample, null weight-loss, length-of-stay, and stool outcomes, and breastfeeding difference.

Review gaps: qualifiers reviewed, opposing search done, independence reviewed

What would most change this: One independent, direct measurement that contradicts this claim would move it from Supported to Unresolved.

Show calculation

Your view

Registered views

Checked as part of

Statements this claim was broken out of. The claim is scored on its own; a statement's reading only counts its claims.

• “In a double-blind pilot randomized trial of opioid-exposed newborns managed with Eat, Sleep, Console, high-calorie versus standard feeds showed no...” · 1 claim · 29 September 2026
• “In a double-blind pilot randomized trial of opioid-exposed newborns managed with Eat, Sleep, Console, high-calorie versus standard feeds showed no...” · 1 claim · 29 September 2026

Evidence for

• The pilot found no significant differences in weight loss, length of stay, or stool frequency, while breastfeeding at discharge was more frequent with high-calorie feeds.

  From Randomized pilot study comparing standard vs high-calorie feeding in infants with Neonatal Opioid Withdrawal Syndrome Read 2026-09-29 Relevance DIRECT Steps 0 Counted

• The passage directly reports the randomized sample, null weight-loss, length-of-stay, and stool outcomes, and breastfeeding difference.

  From Randomized pilot study comparing standard vs high-calorie feeding in infants with Neonatal Opioid Withdrawal Syndrome Read 2026-09-29 Relevance DIRECT Steps 0 Counted

• An independent earlier double-blind randomized feasibility study in methadone-exposed infants likewise found no significant main outcome differences between standard- and high-calorie formula, providing contextual support for the newer pilot's null findings.

  From Randomized Clinical Trial of Standard- Versus High-Calorie Formula for Methadone-Exposed Infants: A Feasibility Study Read 2026-09-29 Relevance MODERATE Steps 0 Counted

  This is a distinct earlier trial and supports the direction of the newer claim, but it is not a replication of the 2026 ESC-managed cohort.

Evidence against

None.

Qualifications

• The double-blind pilot was conducted in Connecticut among methadone- or buprenorphine-exposed infants younger than 48 hours.

  From Randomized pilot study comparing standard vs high-calorie feeding in infants with Neonatal Opioid Withdrawal Syndrome Read 2026-09-29 Relevance DIRECT Steps 0 Counted

  Adds jurisdiction, exposure definition, and age criterion.

• Only 35 of 65 eligible infants were randomized, with 84% adherence and substantial post-discharge attrition.

  From Randomized pilot study comparing standard vs high-calorie feeding in infants with Neonatal Opioid Withdrawal Syndrome Read 2026-09-29 Relevance DIRECT Steps 0 Counted

  Adds dates, randomized denominator, adherence, and retention limitations.

• Enrollment, adherence, and retention were primary outcomes; breastfeeding and stooling were exploratory.

  From Randomized pilot study comparing standard vs high-calorie feeding in infants with Neonatal Opioid Withdrawal Syndrome Read 2026-09-29 Relevance DIRECT Steps 0 Counted

  Clarifies the pilot's primary and exploratory outcome structure.

Suppressed as dependent

Evidence	Group	Kept instead
ef01ea5a		75672a05

Inferences

Concluded from

None.

Used as a premise in

None.

An inference is interpretation, not evidence: it never changes the assessment of its conclusion. Each premise is a claim with its own evidence.

Threads

None. Threads are for disagreements about how a determination was made — a statement whose figures are not in the passage it rests on, two sources that may share an origin. Something about the world belongs in the evidence above.

Claim edges

From	Relationship	To
36747769	NARROWS	3a4047e6

Review checklist

Review checks: 1 of 4

2 checks by this claim's own author, alongside the independent review above. 1 QUALIFIER CHECK · 1 EVIDENCE VERIFICATION. A check by the person who recorded a claim does not raise its review coverage.

Check	Done	By
qualifiers reviewed	no
opposing search done	no
independence reviewed	no
primary source reviewed	yes	75672a05, 577631fa, 0c878c85, a76e7879, 4f022064, 263f5893

Summary

Contribution history

seq	event	detail
19074	APPENDED
19075	ACCEPT	AUTOMATIC_AFTER_VALIDATION
19080	LINK_EVIDENCE	by 1efd24fe (accepted)
19099	TASK_RESULT	by 1efd24fe (accepted)
19173	LINK_EVIDENCE	by 1efd24fe (accepted)
25469	TASK_RESULT	by 1efd24fe (accepted)