MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1893109408 · doi:10.1542/peds.111.s1.1198

Prevalence of Breastfeeding in the United States: The 2001 National Immunization Survey

2003· article· en· W1893109408 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ruowei Li, Zhen Zhao, Ali H. Mokdad, Lawrence Barker, Laurence M. Grummer‐Strawn

Bibliographic record

VenuePEDIATRICS · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreastfeeding Practices and Influences
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreastfeedingMedicineQuarter (Canadian coin)DemographyPediatricsFamily medicineBreast milkEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To address key gaps in the annual monitoring of breastfeeding prevalence in the United States, 3 breastfeeding questions concerning the initiation, duration, and exclusivity of breastfeeding were added to the rotating modules of the National Immunization Survey (NIS) beginning in the third quarter of 2001. The present study examines the current prevalence of breastfeeding in the United States using NIS data from this initial quarter. METHODS: The NIS is a random-digit-dialing survey of households with children aged 19 to 35 months, followed by a mail survey of the eligible children's vaccination providers to validate the child's vaccination information. In the third quarter of 2001, a randomly selected subset of households interviewed in the NIS (N = 896) were asked questions about breastfeeding. RESULTS: Almost two thirds (65.1%) of children had ever been breastfed. At 6 and 12 months, 27.0% and 12.3%, respectively, were receiving some breast milk. Non-Hispanic blacks had the lowest rates of breastfeeding initiation and continuation. Exclusive breastfeeding rates were low in the United States with only 7.9% at 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: Although breastfeeding initiation is near the national goal of 75%, breastfeeding continuation lags behind the national goals of 50% and 25% at 6 and 12 months, respectively. Strenuous public health efforts are needed to improve breastfeeding practices among blacks.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.357

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations147
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePEDIATRICSSame topicBreastfeeding Practices and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207