Evaluation of cabergoline for lactation inhibition in women living with HIV
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We wished to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and acceptability of cabergoline for lactation inhibition in women who live with HIV. In this multicenter prospective observational study, cabergoline was offered as a single oral dose of 1 mg within the first 48 h postpartum. Women were recruited if they delivered a live infant after 35 weeks of gestational age. Participants filled out a questionnaire regarding symptoms of lactation and cabergoline adverse effects on day 2 and day 14 postpartum. On day 14, they also completed a questionnaire about their satisfaction with cabergoline treatment. Prolactin serum level was measured on both visits. Among 68 participants, all but one received cabergoline. The overall effectiveness defined by partial or complete success at day 14 was 98.3% (confidence intervals: 89.5-99.9). At day 14, 67.4% of women who received cabergoline had prolactin serum levels <25 mcg/L (threshold necessary for galactopoiesis). Mild nonspecific adverse effects were experienced by 24 (29.9%) women on day 2 and 24 (41.4%) on day 14, and lasted 48 h or less. Overall, 96% of women were satisfied with cabergoline's ability to prevent postpartum lactation symptoms. In conclusion, cabergoline is an effective, well-accepted, and well-tolerated medication for lactation inhibition in WLWH.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".