MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028390712 · doi:10.1001/archpedi.156.11.1123

Infant Colic

2002· article· en· W2028390712 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicInfant Health and Development
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInfantile colicBreastfeedingOdds ratioPediatricsConfidence intervalProspective cohort studyObstetricsGestational agePregnancyInternal medicineCryingPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.209
Threshold uncertainty score0.392

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.308 · 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