Association between early‐term birth and breastfeeding initiation, duration, and exclusivity: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Infants born early-term, between 37 weeks, 0 days and 38 weeks, 6 days of gestation, are more likely to have adverse health outcomes and to undergo interventions that could pose barriers to breastfeeding. The objectives of this review are to examine the effect of early-term birth on breastfeeding initiation and the duration of any and exclusive breastfeeding. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), EMBASE, and Scopus, from January 2007 to June 2017, for studies examining the associations between early-term birth and rates of breastfeeding initiation and the duration of any and exclusive breastfeeding. RESULTS: Nine studies were included in the review, of which four assessed breastfeeding initiation rates, eight assessed any breastfeeding duration and two assessed exclusive breastfeeding duration. Two studies found that early-term birth was associated with a lower rate of breastfeeding initiation and five studies reported an association between early-term birth and breastfeeding cessation. One study found that early-term birth was associated with a shorter duration of exclusive breastfeeding. CONCLUSION: Although the majority of the reviewed studies reported that early-term infants were less likely to be breastfed and were more likely to be breastfed for a shorter duration, study quality varied and the duration of follow-up was short. Further research with longer follow-up would be beneficial to better understand the effect of early-term birth on 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 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 | 0.004 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".