MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124702540

Maternal cocaine use during breastfeeding.

2012· article· en· W2124702540 on OpenAlexaff
Alex Cressman, Gideon Koren, Anna Pupco, Eunji Kim, Shinya Ito, Pina Bozzo

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreastfeeding Practices and Influences
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEuphoriantDopaminergicBreastfeedingAlertnessDopamineVigilance (psychology)PhysiologyAnesthesiaInternal medicineNeurosciencePsychologyPsychiatryPediatrics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

QUESTION: In my practice several patients have struggled with cocaine abuse during their pregnancies. One woman, now postpartum, wants to breastfeed her infant. Despite being abstinent for the final few months of her pregnancy, I am concerned about the potential adverse effects on her child if she happens to relapse. What is the current evidence about the risks of cocaine exposure during breastfeeding? ANSWER: Given the substantial benefits of breastfeeding for infant health and development, there is no reason for mothers who previously abused cocaine to avoid breastfeeding. It is important for the health care team to counsel patients both on the serious potential risks of cocaine exposure for babies and on the benefits of breastfeeding, to allow for an informed choice. Additionally, attempts should be made to estimate maternal commitment to breastfeeding and discontinuation of cocaine use, and to offer addiction counseling to mitigate the potential risks of infant cocaine exposure. It is paramount to minimize the risk to the infant, which would certainly include mothers ceasing use of cocaine while breastfeeding. For mothers who elect to breastfeed and use cocaine intermittently, breastfeeding should be delayed sufficiently after cocaine use to allow for drug elimination (approximately 24 hours).

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.380

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.216 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicBreastfeeding Practices and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207