MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985348175 · doi:10.1016/j.jmwh.2007.04.006

Lactation Complicated by Overweight and Obesity: Supporting the Mother and Newborn

2007· review· en· W1985348175 on OpenAlexaff
Cecilia M. Jevitt, Ivonne Hernández, Maureen Groër

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Midwifery & Women s Health · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreastfeeding Practices and Influences
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOverweightBreastfeedingLactationObstetricsObesityWeight gainPregnancyMassagePediatricsEndocrinologyBody weight

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research shows that mothers who are obese (with a BMI >30) are less likely to initiate lactation, have delayed lactogenesis II, and are prone to early cessation of breastfeeding. Black women, with the highest rates of American obesity, have the lowest rates and shortest duration of breastfeeding compared to Hispanic and white women. Women who are overweight and obese have lowered prolactin responses to suckling. Women who are obese are at risk for prolonged labors, excessive labor stress, and cesarean birth, all of which delay lactogenesis II. Lactation has a small but significant role in preventing future obesity in the mother and child. Midwifery management of obesity-related lactation problems begins with education about optimal prenatal weight gain and regular weight assessment to avoid excessive gain. Support of physiologic birth processes to avoid stress, prolonged labor, and surgical birth and limit maternal-newborn separation enhances the onset of lactogenesis II. Massage or pumping may soften and extend the obese nipple for easier latch. Infants of lactating women with prior bariatric surgery are at risk for B12 deficiency and require regular nutrition and growth assessment. Five hundred calorie per day restriction paired with aerobic exercise for intentional postpartum weight loss does not affect milk quality or infant growth.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.559

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.354 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations112
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Midwifery & Women s HealthSame topicBreastfeeding Practices and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207