Growth Rate from Birth to Three Months of Breastfed and Non-Breastfed Infants Delivered in Hospitals at Owo Metropolis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The growth rate from birth to three months of some breastfed and non-breastfed infants age 0 – 12 weeks delivered in hospitals at Owo metropolis was evaluated with a view to know the effect of breastfeeding on growth rate. A total of one hundred (100) breastfed and non-breastfed neonates were purposely selected in the neonatal sections of three hospitals in Owo, March 2012. Anthropometry measurement was used to assess growth rate for length, weight, head and mid upper arm circumference of the infants on weekly basis using standard length board, digital weighing scale and shakir tape for twelve weeks. Epi-info 2008 nutritional software was used to determine length for – age z-score, weight for – age z-score, Head and mid-upper arm for age z – scores. Data were analyzed using SPSS soft ware (version 17.0). Results show that the rate of growth in length per week ranged between 0.5 – 1.0cm within 4th to 12th weeks of growth while an average rate of growth in weight of 100 – 400g was discovered between 2nd to 6th weeks of growth among both breastfed and non-breastfed infants. Observation shows that between birth to 4th week formula fed babies tend to be leaner in weight compared to their breastfed counterpart which maintained stable weight within this period. The study shows that breastfeeding significantly (P> 0.05) affect rate of growth among the breastfed infants. Growth pattern of infant skewed toward – 2 and 0 when compared with the NCHS/CDC reference population growth curve. In all, 2% of the breastfed and 8% of non-breastfed were severely underweight. There is no alternative to breastfeeding at this critical stage of life for optimum growth of infants. Therefore, mothers should be encouraged to breastfeed exclusively for 6th months in order to achieve optimum growth and development.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".