Use of short duration breast milk pump‐expression to predict 24‐hr milk output
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Test weighing (TW) is traditionally used to assess adequacy of infant breast milk (BM) intake. TW however intrudes on the breastfeeding process. We compared a brief BM expression procedure with 24‐hour TW among 20 rural and peri‐urban dwelling Ghanaian lactating women. TW was performed using standard procedures and milk intake was recorded by trained personnel in participants' homes. Within 48 hours of the TW, the brief procedure was carried out, involving hourly pump‐expression of BM over a 4‐hr duration. Total 24‐hr BM output in TW was compared to hourly expressed BM, multiplied by 24. Study participants were between 18 and 38 y, with a median age of 25 y. One half of the 20 participants were breastfeeding exclusively; the remaining practiced mixed breastfeeding. Average intake of 53 g (95% CI: 48, 58) per feed was recorded in TW with a range of 7 to 19 feeds per infant. BM intakes did not differ between feeds. Hourly pump‐expressed BM averaged 34 g (95% CI: 28, 41) and did not differ across breasts nor between women but decreased over time (p<0.01). Mean BM intake during 24‐hr TW was 598 + 230 g and did not differ by infant feeding. Mean 24‐hr TW intake was predicted by 4th hr pump‐expressed BM from the left breast only multiplied by 24 (95% CI: ‐39, 303 g) but not by the BM from the right breast (95% CI: 178, 465 g). Breast preference may affect the usefulness of the brief pumping method to estimate BM intake of young children.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".