BREAST MILK SUPPLEMENTATION FOR PRETERM INFANTS: PARENTAL PREFERENCES AND POSTDISCHARGE LACTATION DURATION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Breast milk supplementation is frequently used to improve preterm infant growth and to achieve satisfactory intakes of minerals and vitamins. In the North American market there are commercial preparations: two powders and a liquid. The nutritional data available suggest these products are similar and their utilization is based on healthcare team choice. Parental perception about supplementation has not been previously evaluated although parental attitudes are known to impact on lactation success. The objectives of this paper are to determine parental preference and breastfeeding duration for very-low-birth-weight infants given commercial breast milk enrichment products. The study design is a randomized clinical trial with parental interviews. Sixty-three families with 71 infants were enrolled. Parents expressed their preference for the addition of a powder over a liquid preparation (p<0.01). Those mothers whose infants received the liquid enrichment had a shorter lactation relative to their goal, compared with the mothers of the infants who received the powder (p = 0.017). Parents prefer a powder product for breast milk supplementation and this choice positively impacts on the duration of breastfeeding for very-low-birth-weight 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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".