The Effect of Longer-Term and Exclusive Breastfeeding Promotion on Visual Outcome in Adolescence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Breastfeeding may influence early visual development. We examined whether an intervention to promote increased duration and exclusivity of breastfeeding improves visual outcomes at 16 years of age. Methods: Follow-up of a cluster-randomized trial in 31 Belarusian maternity hospitals/polyclinics randomized to receive a breastfeeding promotion intervention, or usual care, where 46% vs. 3% were exclusively breastfed at 3 months respectively. Low vision in either eye was defined as unaided logMAR vision of ≥0.3 or worse (equivalent to Snellen 20/40) and was used as the primary outcome. Open-field autorefraction in a subset (n = 963) suggested that 84% of those with low vision were myopic. Primary analysis was based on modified intention-to-treat, accounting for clustering within hospitals/clinics. Observational analyses also examined the effect of breastfeeding duration and exclusivity, as well as other sociodemographic and environmental determinants of low vision. Results: A total of 13,392 of 17,046 (79%) participants were followed up at 16 years. Low vision prevalence was 19.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 17.5, 22.0%) in the experimental group versus 21.6% (19.5, 23.8%) in the control group. Cluster-adjusted odds ratio (OR) of low vision associated with the intervention was 0.92 (95% CI: 0.73, 1.16); 0.88 (95% CI: 0.74, 1.05) after adjustment for parental and early life factors. In observational analyses, breastfeeding duration and exclusivity had no significant effect on low vision. However, maternal age at birth (OR: 1.13, 95% CI: 1.07, 1.14/5-year increase) and urban versus rural residence were associated with increased risk of low vision. Lower parental education, number of older siblings was associated with a lower risk of low vision; boys had lower risk compared with girls (0.64, 95% CI: 0.59,0.70). Conclusions: Exclusive breastfeeding promotion had no significant effect on visual outcomes in this study, but other environmental factors showed strong associations. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01561612.).
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".