The Impact of Infant Feeding Method on Neonatal Abstinence Scores of Methadone-Exposed Infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine whether neonatal abstinence scores of infants exposed to methadone in utero differed by infant feeding method. DESIGN: A retrospective chart review. SUBJECTS: Twenty-eight term infants that were exposed to methadone in utero and exhibited symptoms of neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) prior to hospital discharge were included into the study. The sample was further divided by self-selected infant feeding method including (1) predominately breastfed (n = 8), combination fed (n = 11) or predominately formula fed (n = 9). METHODS: Data were extracted by two independent researchers from both the mother's and infant's chart. This included variables such as NAS scores, NAS treatment, infant feeding method and baseline demographic information. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: NAS scores were assessed by Registered Nurses according to hospital protocol using a Modified Finnegan Scoring Tool. PRINCIPAL RESULTS: A non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis one way analysis of variance based on ranks revealed statistically significant differences in the number of NAS scores recorded (P = 0.001), magnitude (P < 0.0001) and area score (P = 0.04) by infant feeding method. In particular, infants who were predominantly breastfed had significantly fewer NAS scores done and lower mean scores suggesting decreased severity and duration of NAS symptoms when compared to infants who were combination fed or predominately formula fed. CONCLUSION: Breastfeeding may offer enhanced benefits for infants who have been exposed to methadone in utero. As such, in the absence of contraindications, mothers in methadone maintenance programs should be encouraged and supported to breastfeed their infants.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".