MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Breastfeeding and Childhood Leukemia Incidence

2015· review· en· W2130981421 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Efrat L. Amitay, Lital Keinan‐Boker

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Pediatrics · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreastfeeding Practices and Influences
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreastfeedingMedicineChildhood leukemiaCochrane LibraryIncidence (geometry)Meta-analysisOdds ratioPediatricsLeukemiaDemographyMEDLINEFamily medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IMPORTANCE: Childhood cancer is a leading cause of mortality among children and adolescents in the developed world and the incidence increases by 0.9% each year. Leukemia accounts for about 30% of all childhood cancer but its etiology is still mostly unknown. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a meta-analysis of available scientific evidence on the association between breastfeeding and childhood leukemia. DATA SOURCES: A thorough search for articles published between January 1960 and December 2014 researching the association between breastfeeding and childhood leukemia was conducted on PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Scopus (performed in July and December 2014), supplemented by manual searches of reference lists. STUDY SELECTION: To be included in the meta-analyses, studies had to be case control; include breastfeeding as a measured exposure and leukemia as a measured outcome; include data on breastfeeding duration in months; and be published in a peer-reviewed journal with full text available in English. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: The search identified 25 relevant studies, 18 of which met all inclusion criteria. No publication bias or heterogeneity among these 18 studies were detected. The quality of each study that met the inclusion criteria was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Multiple meta-analyses were conducted using the random effect model on raw data in the StatsDirect statistical program. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: No or short duration of breastfeeding and the incidence of childhood leukemia. RESULTS: The meta-analysis of all 18 studies indicated that compared with no or shorter breastfeeding, any breastfeeding for 6 months or longer was associated with a 19% lower risk for childhood leukemia (odds ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.73-0.89). A separate meta-analysis of 15 studies indicated that ever breastfed compared with never breastfed was associated with an 11% lower risk for childhood leukemia (odds ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.84-0.94), although the definition of never breastfed differed between studies. All meta-analyses of subgroups of the 18 studies showed similar associations. Based on current meta-analyses results, 14% to 19% of all childhood leukemia cases may be prevented by breastfeeding for 6 months or more. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Breastfeeding is a highly accessible, low-cost public health measure. This meta-analysis that included studies not featured in previous meta-analyses on the subject indicates that promoting breastfeeding for 6 months or more may help lower childhood leukemia incidence, in addition to its other health benefits for children and mothers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.007
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations238
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA PediatricsSame topicBreastfeeding Practices and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207