Is breastfeeding protective against the development of asthma or wheezing in children? A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although breastfeeding is strongly recommended for its many benefits, the association between breastfeeding and childhood asthma development remains controversial. Our objective was to systematically review and meta-analyze the association between physician-diagnosed asthma (PDA) or wheezing development and exclusive or any breastfeeding. Prospective cohort studies of preschool (4-6 years) and school-aged (7-9 years) children were identified from Medline (1948-June 2011) and Embase (1980-June 2011). Breastfeeding exposure for at least the first 3-4 months of life was defined as exclusive (breast milk as the only source of nutrition) or any (breast milk included in the diet). Outcomes were parent-reported PDA or wheezing. Risk of bias in included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Data were analyzed using the Revman software package and adjusted odds ratios were meta-analyzed using random-effects models. Ten studies enrolling 35,411 participants were included. Decreased odds of PDA or wheezing development at ages 7-9 years were identified for those who received exclusive breastfeeding [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.58-0.83] and any breastfeeding (OR 0.53, 95% CI: 0.41-0.68) and at ages 4-6 years for those who received exclusive breastfeeding (OR 0.75, 95% CI: 0.61-0.93). Among the clinically-heterogeneous studies with outcome assessment at ages 4-6 years, any breastfeeding did not change the odds of PDA or wheezing (OR 1.08, 95% CI: 0.76-1.54). Exclusive or any breastfeeding for at least the first 3-4 months of life was associated with lower odds of PDA or wheezing in children, strengthening support for the current breastfeeding recommendations.
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 | 0.010 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.029 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".