Infant Colic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The etiology of infant colic remains unknown, despite an abundance of research on the topic. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether breastfeeding has a protective effect in colic's development. DESIGN: A prospective cohort study of 856 mother-infant dyads. Eligible participants included English-speaking adult residents of a region in Ontario, who gave birth, at term, to a live singleton whose birth weight was appropriate for gestational age. Self-administered questionnaires, mailed to mothers at 1 and 6 weeks post partum, requested information on several infant and maternal factors, including source of infant nutrition (exclusively breastfed, complementary fed, and exclusively formula fed). Cases of colic were identified by applying modified Wessel criteria to data recorded in the Barr Baby Day Diary or by interpreting responses to the Ames Cry Score. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevalence of colic among breastfed, formula-fed, and complementary-fed infants; and adjusted odds ratios (AORs) reflecting the prevalence of colic among formula- and complementary-fed infants relative to those who were breastfed. RESULTS: Of 856 mothers, 733 (86%) completed the first questionnaire and 617 (72%) completed the second questionnaire. Overall, the prevalence of colic at 6 weeks was 24%. No association was seen between the source of infant nutrition and colic's development. In multivariate analyses, higher levels of maternal trait anxiety (AOR, 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.96-1.54), maternal alcohol consumption at 6 weeks (AOR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.03-2.40), and shift work during pregnancy (AOR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.73-2.21) were associated with an increased likelihood of colic, after controlling for feeding method, maternal age, and parity. In these same analyses, being married or having a common-law partner (AOR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.10-0.87) and being employed full-time during pregnancy (AOR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.32-1.14) were associated with a reduced likelihood of colic. CONCLUSIONS: Breastfeeding did not have a protective effect on the development of colic. Although colic was statistically associated with several variables, including preexisting maternal anxiety, much of colic's etiology remains unexplained.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".