The Role of Breast‐Feeding in the Prevention of<i>Helicobacter pylori</i>Infection: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The benefits of breast-feeding for the prevention of infection in infants and young children have been widely recognized, but epidemiologic studies regarding the role of breast-feeding in protecting against Helicobacter pylori infection have produced conflicting results. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of relevant epidemiologic studies conducted during the period 1984-2007 after abstracting data from articles that met our inclusion criteria. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. With use of the random effects model, we calculated the summary odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for H. pylori infection according to history of breast-feeding. RESULTS: For the 14 studies that met inclusion criteria, the summary OR for H. pylori infection was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.61-0.99; 1-sided P = .002). Nine of the 14 studies reported ORs of <1.0, and 6 of these studies reported statistically significant protective effects. Only 1 study reported a statistically significant OR of >1.0. In studies in which the subjects resided in middle- or low-income nations, the summary OR was 0.55 (95% CI, 0.33-0.93; P = .01), compared with 0.93 (95% CI, 0.73-1.19; P = .28) in studies in which subjects resided in high-income nations. The summary OR for studies that use the (13)C-urea breath test was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.32-1.39), compared with 0.91 (95% CI, 0.74-1.11) for studies that used the H. pylori IgG serologic test. We found no statistically significant dose-dependent protective effect against H. pylori associated with increasing duration of breast-feeding. CONCLUSIONS: Breast-feeding is protective against H. pylori infection, especially in middle- and low-income nations.
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 | 0.009 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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, 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".