A comparison of breastfeeding rates by obesity class
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study is to compare breastfeeding initiation rates for women across body mass index (BMI) classes, including normal BMI (18.50−24.99 kg/m2), overweight (25.00−29.99 kg/m2), obese (30.00−39.99 kg/m2), morbidly obese (40.00−49.99 kg/m2) and extreme obesity (≥50.00 kg/m2).Materials and methods: Retrospective cohort of women with singleton pregnancies, delivering in St. John’s, NL between 2002 and 2011. The primary outcome was any breastfeeding on hospital discharge. Breastfeeding rates across BMI categories were compared, using univariate analyses. Multivariate analysis included additional maternal and obstetric variables.Results: Twelve thousand four hundred twenty-two women were included: 8430 breastfed and 3992 did not breastfeed on hospital discharge. Progressively decreasing rates of breastfeeding were noted with increasing obesity class: normal BMI (71.1%), overweight (69.1%), obese (61.6%), morbidly obese (54.2%), and extremely obese women (42.3%). Multivariate analysis confirmed that increasing obesity class resulted in lower odds of breastfeeding: overweight (adjusted odds ratios (aOR) 0.86, 95%CI 0.76–0.98), obese (aOR 0.65, 95%CI 0.57–0.74), morbidly obese (aOR 0.57, 95%CI 0.44–0.74), and extreme obesity (aOR 0.37, 95%CI 0.19–0.74).Conclusion: Women in higher obesity classes are progressively less likely to initiate breastfeeding. Women with the highest prepregnancy BMIs should be particularly counseled on the benefits of breastfeeding.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".