MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2782290133 · doi:10.1186/s12884-017-1633-9

Infant feeding practices within a large electronic medical record database

2018· article· en· W2782290133 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Emily Bartsch, Alison L. Park, Jacqueline Young, Joel G. Ray, Karen Tu

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Pregnancy and Childbirth · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreastfeeding Practices and Influences
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalSt. Michael's HospitalInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, University of TorontoUniversity of TorontoOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term CareInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences
KeywordsMedicineReproductive medicineElectronic medical recordElectronic health recordMedical recordDatabasePediatricsFamily medicinePregnancyInternal medicineHealth careComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The emerging adoption of the electronic medical record (EMR) in primary care enables clinicians and researchers to efficiently examine epidemiological trends in child health, including infant feeding practices. METHODS: We completed a population-based retrospective cohort study of 8815 singleton infants born at term in Ontario, Canada, April 2002 to March 2013. Newborn records were linked to the Electronic Medical Record Administrative data Linked Database (EMRALD™), which uses patient-level information from participating family practice EMRs across Ontario. We assessed exclusive breastfeeding patterns using an automated electronic search algorithm, with manual review of EMRs when the latter was not possible. We examined the rate of breastfeeding at visits corresponding to 2, 4 and 6 months of age, as well as sociodemographic factors associated with exclusive breastfeeding. RESULTS: Of the 8815 newborns, 1044 (11.8%) lacked breastfeeding information in their EMR. Rates of exclusive breastfeeding were 39.5% at 2 months, 32.4% at 4 months and 25.1% at 6 months. At age 6 months, exclusive breastfeeding rates were highest among mothers aged ≥40 vs. < 20 years (rate ratio [RR] 2.45, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.62-3.68), urban vs. rural residence (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.22-1.50), and highest vs. lowest income quintile (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.02-1.36). Overall, immigrants had similar rates of exclusive breastfeeding as non-immigrants; yet, by age 6 months, among those residing in the lowest income quintile, immigrants were more likely to exclusively breastfeed than their non-immigrant counterparts (RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.12-1.83). CONCLUSIONS: We efficiently determined rates and factors associated with exclusive breastfeeding using data from a large EMR database.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.285
Threshold uncertainty score0.765

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.291 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations101
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Pregnancy and ChildbirthSame topicBreastfeeding Practices and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207