Infant Feeding and Weight Gain: Separating Breast Milk From Breastfeeding and Formula From Food
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Studies addressing breastfeeding and obesity rarely document the method of breast milk feeding, type of supplementation, or feeding in hospital. We investigated these practices in the CHILD birth cohort. METHODS: scores (BMIzs) were measured at 12 months. Analyses controlled for maternal BMI and other confounders. RESULTS: Among 2553 mother-infant dyads, 97% initiated breastfeeding, and the median breastfeeding duration was 11.0 months. Most infants (74%) received solids before 6 months. Among "exclusively breastfed" infants, 55% received some expressed breast milk, and 27% briefly received formula in hospital. Compared with exclusive direct breastfeeding at 3 months, all other feeding styles were associated with higher BMIzs: adjusted β: +.12 (95% confidence interval [CI]: .01 to .23) for some expressed milk, +.28 (95% CI: .16 to .39) for partial breastfeeding, and +.45 (95% CI: .30 to .59) for exclusive formula feeding. Brief formula supplementation in hospital did not alter these associations so long as exclusive breastfeeding was established and sustained for at least 3 months. Formula supplementation by 6 months was associated with higher BMIzs (adjusted β: +.25; 95% CI: .13 to .38), whereas supplementation with solid foods was not. Results were similar for weight gain velocity. CONCLUSIONS: Breastfeeding is inversely associated with weight gain velocity and BMI. These associations are dose dependent, partially diminished when breast milk is fed from a bottle, and substantially weakened by formula supplementation after the neonatal period.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".