Early Adversity, Symptoms of Depression and Breastfeeding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Backround There is considerable variation in the prevalence of breastfeeding, which allows for investigation of factors that influence the initiation and duration of breastfeeding and its association with well being of the mother infant dyad. Aims To better understand factors that influence (1) maternal breastfeeding status and (2) the “effects” of breastfeeding on mothers and infants. Methods Participants (n = 170) derive from a longitudinal Canadian study “Maternal Adversity, Vulnerability and Neurodevelopment (MAVAN)”, a project designed to understand the pre- and postnatal influences on maternal health and child social-emotional development. Mothers provided data on breastfeeding status, early life adversity, oxytocin gene and oxytocin gene receptor polymorphisms, depression/anxiety, infant temperament and maternal sensitivity. Results Early life adversity associated with a shorter breastfeeding duration and higher maternal depression levels. The relation between mothers’ early adversity and the duration of breastfeeding was mediated by mothers’ depression level, but only in women carrying one variant of the oxytocin rs2740210 gene marker (CC genotype). Mothers who breastfeed at 3 months acted more sensitively towards their infants when they were 6 months old and they in turn had infants who at 18 months showed reduced negative affectivity. Conclusion Women who have been exposed to early adversity are “living with the past” and they are, to certain extent, protected or more vulnerable to depression, depending on their genotype. Breastfeeding associated with higher maternal sensitivity, which associated with decreased negative emotionality in the infant at 18 months. Our results help to clarify associations between early life experiences, breastfeeding, and the mother-infant relationship. Disclosure of interest The authors have not supplied their declaration of competing interest.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".