Telephone based peer support increased duration of breast feeding in primiparous mothers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dennis CL, Hodnett E, Gallop R, et al. The effect of peer support on breast-feeding duration among primiparous women: a randomized controlled trial. CMAJ2002 Jan 8; 166 : 21 –8 [OpenUrl][1][Abstract/FREE Full Text][2] QUESTION: Do primiparous, breastfeeding mothers who receive telephone based peer support continue breast feeding longer than women who receive conventional care? Randomised (allocation concealed), blinded (outcome assessor), controlled trial with follow up at 4, 8, and 12 weeks post partum. 2 semi-urban community hospitals near Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 258 in hospital, primiparous, breastfeeding women who were ≥16 years of age, were able to speak English, had a singleton birth at ≥37 weeks gestation, and resided in the surrounding region accessible by a local telephone call. Exclusion criteria were factors that could seriously interfere with breast feeding (eg, serious maternal illness or infant congenital abnormality) or prenatal enrolment with the participating volunteer breastfeeding organisation. 256 women (99%) completed the trial and were included in the analysis. Most (75%) were between 25 … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DCanadian%2BMedical%2BAssociation%2BJournal%26rft.stitle%253DCMAJ%26rft.aulast%253DDennis%26rft.auinit1%253DC.-L.%26rft.volume%253D166%26rft.issue%253D1%26rft.spage%253D21%26rft.epage%253D28%26rft.atitle%253DThe%2Beffect%2Bof%2Bpeer%2Bsupport%2Bon%2Bbreast-feeding%2Bduration%2Bamong%2Bprimiparous%2Bwomen%253A%2Ba%2Brandomized%2Bcontrolled%2Btrial%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F11800243%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=ABST&journalCode=cmaj&resid=166/1/21&atom=%2Febnurs%2F5%2F3%2F75.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
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 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".