Exclusive bottle feeding of either formula or breast milk is associated with greater infant weight gain than exclusive breastfeeding, but findings may not reflect a causal effect of bottle feeding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Commentary on: Li R, Magadia J, Fein SB, et al. Risk of bottle-feeding for rapid weight gain during the first year of life. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2012;166:431–6.[OpenUrl][1][FREE Full Text][2] The paper by Li et al addresses a topic that has been much studied and debated over the last several decades: the relationship between type of infant feeding and growth in the first year of life. This study adds a new twist, however: the consideration of bottle feeding, even among infants who receive breast milk via the bottle, rather than formula. Although formula and other nonhuman milk can be provided only by bottle, breast milk can be provided either via the breast or the bottle. Many breastfeeding mothers, particularly those who choose to or are obligated to return to work during … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DArch%2BPediatr%2BAdolesc%2BMed%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1093%252Faje%252Fkwq500%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F21430190%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/ijlink?linkType=FULL&journalCode=amjepid&resid=173/9/988&atom=%2Febmed%2F18%2F3%2F114.atom
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".