Adherence to complementary feeding recommendations for infants and implications for public health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The current study investigates (i) the extent to which breast-feeding and non-breast-feeding mothers follow the Canadian Nutrition for Healthy Term Infants (NHTI) recommendations; (ii) the first complementary foods given and the differences by breast-feeding status; (iii) whether any breast-feeding is associated with earlier introduction to complementary foods relative to non-breast-feeding, after controlling for potentially confounding factors; and (iv) the need for improvements in timing and resources of interventions by examining breast-feeding rates over time and information sources used by mothers. DESIGN: Longitudinal data from the Kingston, Frontenac, and Lennox & Addington (KFL&A) Infant Feeding Survey were used. Mothers completed a survey at the end of their hospital stay and were interviewed by telephone at 2, 4, 6 and 12 months thereafter. SETTING: The study took place in the KFL&A region of Ontario, Canada. SUBJECTS: The sample consisted of 325 mothers who gave birth to a live infant of at least 36 weeks' gestation and a birth weight of at least 1500 g at Kingston General Hospital between January and July of 2008. RESULTS: Four in five mothers introduced complementary foods prior to 6 months. Mothers not breast-feeding at 6 months introduced water, juice, infant cereals, fruit and vegetables, and foods not recommended by Canada's Food Guide sooner than breast-feeding mothers. Breast-feeding mothers were more likely to introduce milks appropriately, but had low adherence to giving their infants vitamin D supplements. CONCLUSIONS: To support adherence to NHTI recommendations, interventions should be conducted during early infancy and deliver consistent, evidence-based recommendations.
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 | 0.005 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".