Postnatal HIV transmission in breastfed infants of HIV‐infected women on ART: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: To systematically review the literature on mother-to-child transmission in breastfed infants whose mothers received antiretroviral therapy and support the process of updating the World Health Organization infant feeding guidelines in the context of HIV and ART. METHODS: We reviewed experimental and observational studies; exposure was maternal HIV antiretroviral therapy (and duration) and infant feeding modality; outcomes were overall and postnatal HIV transmission rates in the infant at 6, 9, 12 and 18 months. English literature from 2005 to 2015 was systematically searched in multiple electronic databases. Papers were analysed by narrative synthesis; data were pooled in random effects meta-analyses. Postnatal transmission was assessed from four to six weeks of life. Study quality was assessed using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and GRADE. RESULTS: Eleven studies were identified, from 1439 citations and review of 72 abstracts. Heterogeneity in study methodology and pooled estimates was considerable. Overall pooled transmission rates at 6 months for breastfed infants with mothers on antiretroviral treatment (ART) was 3.54% (95% CI: 1.15-5.93%) and at 12 months 4.23% (95% CI: 2.97-5.49%). Postnatal transmission rates were 1.08 (95% CI: 0.32-1.85) at six and 2.93 (95% CI: 0.68-5.18) at 12 months. ART was mostly provided for PMTCT only and did not continue beyond six months postpartum. No study provided data on mixed feeding and transmission risk. CONCLUSION: There is evidence of substantially reduced postnatal HIV transmission risk under the cover of maternal ART. However, transmission risk increased once PMTCT ART stopped at six months, which supports the current World Health Organization recommendations of life-long ART for all.
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 | 0.013 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.027 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".