Breastfeeding during late pregnancy did not affect infant breast milk consumption and growth (1017.2)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The one thousand days window is the most important period when maternal nutrition demands and infant feeding practices affect infant development. We explored if the practice of breastfeeding until the third trimester of pregnancy affects birth outcomes and infant breast milk (BM) consumption and growth. Methods: Between 2009 and 2013, a cohort of 162 pregnant women was followed from the third trimester of pregnancy through 6 months postpartum in a peri‐urban community in Lima, Peru. The cohort included two groups: group 1 (cases) consisted of pregnant women who reported that they continued to breastfeed their child during the third trimester of pregnancy; group 2 (controls) consisted of pregnant women who had not breastfed during their pregnancy or if they did, it was only in the first trimester. The cohort was visited pre‐ and postpartum when toddler and infant 24‐h BM consumption and anthropometry were measured, respectively. Results: We compared 81 case‐control pairs. Of the 49 cases who accepted a prenatal visit, around 60% of the toddlers had 0 g of BM intake during 24 h, even though an average of 4 breastfeeds was observed. No significant difference was found between cases and controls regarding birth weight, birth length, and BM consumption at the 1 st , 3 rd , and 6 th month postpartum (all p>0.10). Conclusion: There was no effect of the practice of breastfeeding until the third trimester of pregnancy on birth outcomes and infant BM consumption or growth during the first six months of life. Grant Funding Source : Supported by Canadian Institutes of Health Research
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".