MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2942954137 · doi:10.1177/0890334419838482

The Association Between Pregnancy-Specific Anxiety and Exclusive Breastfeeding Status Early in the Postpartum Period

2019· article· en· W2942954137 on OpenAlexafffund
Kristin Horsley, Tuong‐Vi Nguyen, Blaine Ditto, Deborah Da Costa

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Human Lactation · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreastfeeding Practices and Influences
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsBreastfeedingPregnancyMedicineAnxietyObstetricsPostpartum periodOdds ratioPediatricsPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Exclusive breastfeeding is recommended for the first 6 months of life and has significant benefits for both mother and child. Pregnancy-specific anxiety is a distinct and definable syndrome that has been identified as a robust predictor of pregnancy outcomes, but whether it is associated with exclusive breastfeeding status has not been determined. RESEARCH AIMS: To examine the association between pregnancy-specific anxiety in each trimester of pregnancy and exclusive breastfeeding status early in the postpartum period. METHODS: Data were available from 412 women who participated in a longitudinal pregnancy cohort study. Pregnancy-specific anxiety and exclusive breastfeeding status were assessed using an online self-report questionnaire. RESULTS: = 0.95, 95% CI [0.91, 0.99]) trimester of pregnancy was associated with a 5-6% decrease in the odds of exclusive breastfeeding at 6-8 weeks postpartum. CONCLUSIONS: Pregnancy-specific anxiety was associated with lower odds of exclusive breastfeeding at 6-8 weeks postpartum. Prenatal interventions designed to increase exclusive breastfeeding duration may benefit from the incorporation of strategies that help reduce worries and concerns unique to the pregnancy experience.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.244

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Human LactationSame topicBreastfeeding Practices and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207