MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1709702919 · doi:10.1080/10715760500306737

Feeding upon awakening in breastfeeding and bottlefeeding mothers does not affect the awakening cortisol response

2005· article· en· W1709702919 on OpenAlexafffund
Mai Thanh Tu, Claire‐Dominique Walker, Sonia Lupien

Bibliographic record

VenueStress · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicStress Responses and Cortisol
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University Institute
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsBreastfeedingAffect (linguistics)Cortisol awakening responsePsychologyPopulationConfoundingMedicineDevelopmental psychologyBreast feedingHydrocortisoneEndocrinologyInternal medicinePediatricsEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An acute breastfeeding stimulus is generally followed by a transient decrease in cortisol levels in mothers. It is currently not clear whether breastfeeding upon waking up would affect the awakening cortisol response (ACR), a significant increase in salivary cortisol levels occurring within 30-45 min after awakening. In the present study, we measured the amplitude and stability of the ACR in response to infant feeding in women who were exclusively bottle-feeding (n = 16), or breastfeeding (n = 13) or feeding their child solid food (n = 12). The results show that the type of infant feeding did not affect the amplitude and stability of the ACR. Given that the ACR has been reported to reflect physical and psychological well-being, our finding that infant feeding upon waking up might not be a confounding factor in ACR studies on the postpartum population represents valuable methodological information.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStressSame topicStress Responses and CortisolFrench-language works237,207