Relationship between exclusive breast feeding and cardiorespiratory fitness in children and adolescents: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Breast feeding has been considered important due to its short-term and long-term benefits on infant and maternal health. Regarding the long-term benefits, the influence of exclusive breastfeeding on cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) during childhood and adolescence has been studied, although with controversial conclusions. This study protocol aims to provide a clear and standardised procedure for systematically reviewing the relationship between breast feeding, in terms of duration and exclusivity, and CRF in children and adolescents. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This systematic review and meta-analysis protocol is reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols. A literature search will be conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library. Observational studies regarding the association between breast feeding and CRF in children and adolescents written in English or Spanish will be included. A Critical Appraisal Checklist for Analytical Cross Sectional Studies and The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for longitudinal studies will be used for quality assessment of included studies. Standardised mean differences of CRF by exclusive breastfeeding categories will be calculated as the primary outcome. Subgroup analyses and meta-regression will be performed based on the sources of heterogeneity. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This evidence-based systematic review will summarise the relevant information on the association of exclusive breast feeding and CRF in children and adolescents. The results will be disseminated by publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Given that the data used for this systematic review will be exclusively extracted from published studies, ethical approval will not be required. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018082642.
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 | 0.086 | 0.140 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.028 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.063 | 0.007 |
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".