The Effect of Prolonged and Exclusive Breast-Feeding on Dental Caries in Early School-Age Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To study the effects of prolonged and exclusive breast-feeding on dental caries, we followed up children participating in the Promotion of Breastfeeding Intervention Trial (PROBIT), a cluster-randomized trial of a breast-feeding promotion intervention based on the WHO/UNICEF Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative. A total of 17,046 healthy, mother-infant breast-feeding pairs were enrolled from 31 Belarussian maternity hospitals and affiliated polyclinics, of whom 13,889 (81.5%) were followed up at 6.5 years. At follow-up, polyclinic pediatricians transcribed the reports of a standard dental examination performed by public health dentists at age 6 years and recorded in the children's polyclinic charts. Analysis was based on intention to treat, with a statistical model that accounts for clustering within hospitals/clinics to permit inferences at the individual level. The experimental intervention led to a large increase in exclusive breast-feeding at 3 months (43.3 vs. 6.4%, p < 0.001) and a significantly higher prevalence of any breast-feeding at all ages up to and including 12 months. No significant intervention effects were observed on dental caries. Our results, based on the largest randomized trial ever conducted in the area of human lactation, provide no evidence of beneficial or harmful effects of prolonged and exclusive breast-feeding on dental caries at early school age.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".