Breastfeeding mitigates the effects of maternal HIV on infant infectious morbidity in the Option B+ era
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The effects of in-utero HIV-exposure on infectious morbidity and mortality in settings with universal maternal treatment and high breastfeeding rates are unclear. Further, the benefits of exclusive feeding options have not been assessed in the Option B+ era. We investigated these in two African settings with high breastfeeding uptake and good HIV treatment infrastructure during the first year of life. METHODS: Cox regression with time-changing variables in a birth cohort of 749 HIV-exposed uninfected and HIV-unexposed uninfected infants from Cape Town, South Africa and Jos, Nigeria. RESULTS: There was no difference in infectious morbidity incidence between HIV-exposed uninfected and HIV-unexposed uninfected infants (hazard ratio 1.01; 95% CI 0.78-1.32) after adjusting for confounding variables. Formula-fed infants had significantly higher infectious morbidity incidence when compared with exclusively breastfed infants (hazard ratio 1.64; 95% CI 1.03-2.63) and mixed-breastfed infants (hazard ratio 1.42; 95% CI 1.00-2.02) after adjusting for potential confounding variables. There was no significant difference in mortality among HIV-exposed infants and HIV-unexposed infants during the first year of life in this cohort (2.04 versus 0.94%, P = 0.38). Notably, exclusive breastfeeding for only 4 months had protective effects on morbidity up to 1 year. CONCLUSION: In settings with universal antiretroviral coverage and high breastfeeding rates, breastfeeding mitigates the effects of in-utero HIV exposure among infants during the first year of life. These findings support previous recommendations for exclusive breastfeeding among HIV-infected women and highlight the role that breastfeeding plays on the health of infants in settings where exclusive breastfeeding is not always feasible or where replacement feeding is recommended.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".