Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study aims to assess the relation between breastfeeding duration and age at menarche. Analysis was based on a cross sectional study on adolescent girls in the age group 10 – 15 years. The main outcome was self-reported age at menarche. Pearson’s correlation was used to investigate the relation between duration of exclusive and any breastfeeding with age at menarche with adjustment sequentially for specific sets of known socioeconomic, maternal, and genetic, confounders [1]. Menarche is a critical biomarker in the reproductive life of females [2]. It serves as an intermediate health outcome that affects women’s wellbeing at later stages of life [3]. There appears to be trend for decreasing age at menarche worldwide. There are contradictory reports of lowering age at menarche due to increasing BMI in the population [4]. The tempto, level of growth and maturation during adolescence may have important implication to future adult health. The purpose of the study was to examine mode of feeding in infancy and its effect on BMI and age at menarche [5]. 700 girls, 10-15 years were selected by multistage random sampling procedure. Age of the girls, Socioeconomic Status, BMI, menstrual status and mode of feeding in infancy were identified by questionnaire. Quetelet Index (wt/h2) was used to identify the BMI. B. G. Prasad method of social classification was used to grade the Socio economic Status [6]. Mean age at menarche was found to be 12.36±1.15 years. It was observed that mode of feeding infancy was significantly correlated (P< 0.01) with the age at menarche, Socioeconomic Status and educational qualification of mothers. However, the study suggested that girls who were formula fed deposit more body fat and were overweight.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".