MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2328871769 · doi:10.1136/ebmed-2012-100632

Higher breastfeeding intensity associated with improved postpartum glucose metabolism in women with recent gestational diabetes

2012· letter· en· W2328871769 on OpenAlexaff
Carla A. Borgoño, Ravi Retnakaran

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Medicine · 2012
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Diabetes Research and Management
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGestational diabetesMedicineBreastfeedingObstetricsPregnancyDiabetes mellitusPostpartum periodType 2 diabetesPopulationBreast feedingInsulin resistanceInternal medicineEndocrinologyGestationPediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Commentary on: Gunderson EP, Hedderson MM, Chiang V, et al. Lactation intensity and postpartum maternal glucose tolerance and insulin resistance in women with recent GDM: the SWIFT cohort. Diabetes Care 2012; 35: 50– 6.[OpenUrl][1][Abstract/FREE Full Text][2] WHO recommends that all babies should be exclusively breastfed for the first 6 months after birth.1 In the general population, breastfeeding has been associated with short-term improvement in postpartum maternal glucose metabolism and long-term reduction in risk of cardiometabolic disease including type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and myocardial infarction.2 ,3 Women diagnosed with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), defined as glucose intolerance of varying severity with onset and first recognition in pregnancy, have an increased lifetime risk of developing both T2DM and cardiovascular disease.4 However, the relationship between breastfeeding and maternal glucose metabolism has not been clearly established in this … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DDiabetes%2BCare%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.2337%252Fdc11-1409%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F22011407%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=diacare&resid=35/1/50&atom=%2Febmed%2F17%2F6%2Fe7.atom

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0060.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.003

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based MedicineSame topicGestational Diabetes Research and ManagementFrench-language works237,207