Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Globally, mothers from a wide variety of socio-environmental contexts often assume slow-growing babies are underfed and erroneously attribute perceived growth retardation to inadequate milk supply or poor milk quality [1]. These assumptions frequently prompt replacement of breastmilk with formula or other non-breastmilk foods to encourage infant weight and length gains [1]. This tendency to truncate breastfeeding to accelerate growth is exacerbated by some features of contemporary environments in both developing and developed nations such as growing rates of maternal obesity and caesarean section that interfere with breastfeeding. Unfortunately, regardless of the primary reason for truncation, cessation of exclusive breastfeeding before 4–6 months and of continued breastfeeding before 12 months is associated with increased risk of gastrointestinal infections and poor immune system development in infancy, and obesity and a variety of non-communicable diseases in later life [2]. Although stunting and wasting in children do represent major public health challenges in low- and middle-income countries, these phenomena should not be confused with unfaltering growth less than two standard deviations below global averages. Abundant evidence shows breastfeeding surpasses formula feeding nutritionally, immunologically, and emotionally [2]. These findings are unsurprising, given that humans share with all other mammals > 200 million years of successful evolutionary history of milk production. Within this broader mammalian context, humans have evolved both resilience and substantial flexibility in infant feeding. Regarding flexibility, use of complementary foods pre-weaning can partially offload the energetic burden of feeding from mothers to other caregivers [3]. Regarding resilience, nearly all human mothers can produce sufficient milk to meet infant needs—if not all demands—for the first 6 months postpartum even in adverse conditions, with milk production well-buffered against environmental insults [3]. Indeed, evidence from contemporary, non-industrialized populations indicates the most common infant feeding strategy is one of on-demand exclusive breastfeeding for ∼6 months, followed by introduction of easily digestible, nutrient-dense complementary foods combined with continued breastfeeding for 2–4 years. Our hunter-gatherer ancestors likely used infant feeding approaches similar to these norms, with variations attuned to local ecology [3]. Infant growth also likely varies with local population histories and environments. Growth trajectories vary widely within and especially among human populations, irrespective of infant feeding strategy [4]. Although new breastfeeding-based international infant growth standards (e.g. [5]) provide useful diagnostic guidelines regarding stunting, they should not be used to justify early cessation of exclusive or continued breastfeeding. Breastfeeding mothers can be assured that even very slow growth—if not interrupted by episodes of growth faltering—is often normal and healthy, only exceptionally rarely indicating milk insufficiency. With the aim of reducing infectious and non-communicable disease burdens, clinicians should offer infant feeding advice that is both evidence-based and feasible within a given ecological, historical and social context. We should pay special attention to obese mothers and mothers that birthed via caesarean section, since these evolutionarily-novel factors negatively affect breastfeeding performance [6]. AG receives support from Simon Fraser University (SFU). LM is supported two doctoral research fellowships, one provided by the Human Evolutionary Studies Program at SFU and one provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, award # CGS-727-2011-33.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».