Direct vs. Expressed Breast Milk Feeding: Relation to Duration of Breastfeeding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies examining direct vs. expressed breast milk feeding are scarce. We explored the predictors of mode of breastfeeding and its association with breastfeeding duration in a multi-ethnic Asian population. METHODS: We included 541 breastfeeding mother-infant pairs from the Growing Up in Singapore Toward healthy Outcomes cohort. Mode of breastfeeding (feeding directly at the breast, expressed breast milk (EBM) feeding only, or mixed feeding (a combination of the former 2 modes)) was ascertained at three months postpartum. Ordinal logistic regression analyses identified predictors of breast milk expression. Cox regression models examined the association between mode of breastfeeding and duration of any and of full breastfeeding. RESULTS: Maternal factors independently associated with a greater likelihood of breast milk expression instead of direct breastfeeding were Chinese (vs. Indian) ethnicity, (adjusted odds ratio, 95% CI; 3.41, 1.97-5.91), tertiary education (vs. secondary education or lower) (2.22, 1.22-4.04), primiparity (1.54, 1.04-2.26) and employment during pregnancy (2.53, 1.60-4.02). Relative to those who fed their infants directly at the breast, mothers who fed their infants EBM only had a higher likelihood of early weaning among all mothers who were breastfeeding (adjusted hazard ratio, 95% CI; 2.20, 1.61-3.02), and among those who were fully breastfeeding (2.39, 1.05-5.41). Mothers who practiced mixed feeding, however, were not at higher risk of earlier termination of any or of full breastfeeding. CONCLUSIONS: Mothers who fed their infants EBM exclusively, but not those who practiced mixed feeding, were at a higher risk of terminating breastfeeding earlier than those who fed their infants directly at the breast. More education and support are required for women who feed their infants EBM only.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".