ArticleDysphagia2025
A Ducted, Biomimetic Nipple Improves Aspects of Infant Feeding Physiology and Performance in an Animal Model.
Article in Dysphagia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- A ducted, biomimetic nipple replicates breastfeeding mechanics through ontogeny in an infant animal model.Pediatric research · 2026Article
- Regional Heterogeneity in the Electromyography Activity of Extrinsic Tongue Muscles Is Critical to Tongue Function.Integrative and comparative biology · 2025Article
- Evaluating the Impact of Nipple Design on Tongue Function in Infant Feeding Using a Dynamic Endocast.Integrative and comparative biology · 2025Article
- A Machine Learning Pipeline for Automated Bolus Segmentation and Area Measurement in Swallowing Videofluoroscopy Images of an Infant Pig Model.Dysphagia · 2025Article
- Fluid flow and feeding performance in infant mammals: evaluating the impact of nipple design.The Journal of experimental biology · 2025Article
- Infant pigs demonstrate motor adaptation across multiple physiologic functions during feeding in response to dynamic changes in milk flow rate.Journal of applied physiology (Bethesda, Md. : 1985) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Breastfeeding is widely regarded as the optimal form of feeding infants, as it provides both nutritional and physiological benefits. For example, breastfed infants generate greater intraoral suction and have higher amplitude muscle activities compared to bottle-fed infants, with downstream implications for motor function, development, and health. One mechanism that might explain these physiological differences is the structure of the nipple an infant is feeding on. Breasts in most mammals are ducted soft-tissue structures that require suction to be generated for milk to be released, whereas bottle nipples are hollow and allow milk to be acquired by compression of the nipple. We used a validated animal model (pigs) to test how being raised on a novel ducted nipple impacted feeding physiology and performance compared to infants raised on a standard (cisternic) nipple. At the end of infancy, we fed both groups with both nipple types and used high-speed videofluoroscopy synchronized with intraoral pressure measurements to evaluate feeding function. Nipple type did not have a profound impact on sucking or swallowing rates. However, when feeding on a ducted nipple, infant pigs raised on a ducted nipple generated more suction, consumed milk at a faster rate, swallowed larger boluses of milk, and had decreased likelihood of penetration and aspiration than those raised on a cisternic nipple. These data replicate those found when comparing breast- and bottle-fed infants, suggesting that a ducted, biomimetic nipple may provide bottle-fed infants with the physiologic benefits of breastfeeding.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.