Choice of Breastfeeding and Physicians' Advice: A Cohort Study of Women Receiving Propylthiouracil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the gap between the current social/medical practice and the evidence-based recommendation in favor of breastfeeding during maternal propylthiouracil (PTU) therapy. DESIGN: Prospective, observational, cohort study. SUBJECTS: Women requiring PTU during pregnancy, and endocrinologists and family physicians in Ontario, Canada. INTERVENTIONS: Questionnaire. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Women were interviewed postpartum regarding their choice of infant feeding method and relevant advice received from physicians. Physicians were questioned about their advice to nursing women receiving PTU. RESULTS: Of 78 women, 66 had live births. Thirty-six required PTU postpartum (group 1), and 30 did not (group 2). Thirty-six healthy women served as controls (group 3). Breastfeeding initiation rates for groups 1, 2, and 3 were 44%, 83%, and 83%, respectively. In group 1, 15 women who breastfed received advice from 22 physicians regarding breastfeeding (20 in favor, 1 against, and 1 equivocal). Eleven who formula fed received advice from 17 physicians (4 in favor, 12 against, and 1 equivocal). A logistic regression analysis of group 1 showed that physicians' advice was the only significant predictor of the woman's choice to breastfeed during PTU therapy (relative risk: 5.48; 95% confidence interval: 1.28-23.40). The physician survey showed that 44% of endocrinologists do not recommend breastfeeding during PTU therapy. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial proportion of the lactating patients on PTU still receive advice against breastfeeding from their physicians. Physicians' advice and attitudes toward breastfeeding during PTU therapy are a major factor in women's final decision to breastfeed. Physicians' compliance with evidence-based data will facilitate breastfeeding in this group.propylthiouracil, breastfeeding, decision-making.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".