Association between Breast Feeding and Paediatric Sleep Disordered Breathing: a Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Breast feeding has been suggested as a potential protective factor against childhood snoring and sleep disordered breathing (SDB). SDB can have major health consequences. The objective of this systematic review is to synthesise the available literature concerning any potential association between infant feeding methods and SDB in young children. METHODS: Five electronic databases were searched. All searches were inclusive until August 5, 2016. Two authors independently reviewed potentially relevant articles for eligibility. Any prospective or retrospective study, case-control study, cohort study, clinical trial, and cross-sectional study that evaluated the association between infant feeding methods and SDB were included. Data on study design, aim of study, sample size, study population, assessment tool, infant feeding methods, and outcome measures were extracted. RESULTS: Nine studies fulfilled the criteria to be finally included in this review, only cohorts and cross-sectional studies were identified. While seven of the selected studies reported a statistically significant association between breast feeding and reduced risk of SDB, the remaining two studies did not report any association. The main methodological limitation was high heterogeneity in the diagnostic criteria and assessment tools to identify SDB and limited data collection on infant feeding methods. CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence may point to a protective association, however, as uncertainty is moderate, any suggestion that breast feeding may or may not decrease the risk of SDB is currently unwarranted. More research on the topic is required to resolve some of the contradictions between included studies.
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 | 0.007 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".