MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967040972 · doi:10.1177/0890334405277604

Epidural Analgesia During Labor and Delivery: Effects on the Initiation and Continuation of Effective Breastfeeding

2005· article· en· W1967040972 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Human Lactation · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreastfeeding Practices and Influences
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaHealth Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreastfeedingMedicineObstetricsProspective cohort studyCohort studyAnesthesiaBreast feedingCohortPediatricsSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.799
Threshold uncertainty score0.184

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.269 · 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