MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024688376 · doi:10.1016/j.adnc.2004.12.003

A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE EXAMINING THE BENEFITS AND CHALLENGES, INCIDENCE AND DURATION, AND BARRIERS TO BREASTFEEDING IN PRETERM INFANTS

2005· review· en· W2024688376 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer Callen, Janet Pinelli

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Neonatal Care · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreastfeeding Practices and Influences
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University Medical CentreMcMaster Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreastfeedingMedicineIncidence (geometry)Duration (music)Pediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Breastfeeding benefits preterm infants from a nutritional, gastrointestinal, immunological, developmental, and psychological perspective. Despite the benefits, the incidence and duration of breastfeeding preterm infants continues to be less than that of full-term infants. The lower incidence is probably related to breastfeeding challenges that preterm infants and parents face, including establishing and maintaining a milk supply and transitioning from gavage feeding to breastfeeding. In order to increase the incidence and duration of breastfeeding preterm infants, researchers must examine breastfeeding experiences longitudinally. This way, researchers and clinicians can begin to understand the barriers to breastfeeding at various time periods in the breastfeeding experience and begin implementing strategies to remove these barriers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.011
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
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

Citations238
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Neonatal CareSame topicBreastfeeding Practices and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207