Effect of domperidone on milk production in mothers of premature newborns: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Varying degrees of success have been reported with strategies to increase milk production when lactation is failing. The objective of this study was to investigate the efficacy of domperidone in augmenting milk production in mothers of premature newborns. METHODS: Twenty patients were randomly assigned to receive either domperidone or placebo for 7 days. Milk volume was measured daily. Domperidone levels were measured in randomly selected milk and serum samples on day 5 of the study. Serum prolactin levels were measured before the start of the study, on day 5 and on day 10 (3 days after the last dose of the study medication). RESULTS: Data from 16 patients were available for analysis (7 in the domperidone group and 9 in the placebo group). When compared with baseline values, the mean increase in the volume of milk production from day 2 to 7 was 49.5 (standard deviation [SD] 29.4) mL in the domperidone group and 8.0 (SD 39.5) mL in the placebo group (p < 0.05); proportionally this represented an increase of 44.5% and 16.6% respectively. The serum prolactin levels were similar in the 2 groups at baseline; by day 5 they were significantly higher in the domperidone group than in the placebo group, returning to baseline levels in both groups 3 days after the last dose of the study medication. Very small amounts of domperidone were detected in the breast milk samples. INTERPRETATION: In the short term domperidone increases milk production in women with low milk supply and is detected at low levels in breast milk.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".