Epidural Analgesia During Labor and Delivery: Effects on the Initiation and Continuation of Effective Breastfeeding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This prospective cohort study examined the association between epidural analgesia during labor and delivery, infant neurobehavioral status, and the initiation and continuation of effective breastfeeding. Healthy, term infants delivered vaginally by mothers who received epidural analgesia (n = 52) or no analgesia (n = 63) during labor and delivery were assessed at 8 to 12 hours postpartum, followed by a telephone interview with the mothers at 4 weeks postpartum. There was no significant difference between the epidural analgesia and no-analgesia groups in breastfeeding effectiveness or infant neurobehavioral status at 8 to 12 hours or in the proportion of mothers continuing to breastfeed at 4 weeks. Therefore, epidural analgesia did not appear to inhibit effective breastfeeding. There was a positive correlation between infant neurobehavioral status and breastfeeding effectiveness (Spearman rho = 0.48, P = .01), suggesting that neurobehavioral assessment may prove beneficial in identifying infants at greater risk for breastfeeding difficulties.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".