Association between expressed breast milk feeding and breastfeeding duration in Hong Kong mothers.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Expressed breast milk feeding has increased substantially in the past two decades. Once used primarily for preterm infants, feeding expressed breast milk is now more common in mothers giving birth to healthy term infants. However, the effect of expressed breast milk feeding on breastfeeding duration is unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the association between breast milk expression practices and breastfeeding duration in women giving birth to healthy infants. METHODS: From 2017 to 2018, we recruited 821 new mothers from two public hospitals in Hong Kong. Participants were followed up at 1.5, 3, and 6 months postpartum or until they stopped breastfeeding. The proportion, type, and mode of all milk feeding were assessed at each follow-up. RESULTS: At 1.5 months postpartum, 47.9%, 37.7%, and 14.4% of participants were feeding by direct breastfeeding only, mixed-mode feeding, and expressed breast milk only, respectively. Participants feeding expressed breast milk only were more likely to be supplementing with infant formula. When compared with participants who provided only direct breastfeeding, participants who gave only expressed breast milk at 1.5 months had 57% lower odds of breastfeeding continuation at three months postpartum. After stratification by infant formula supplementation, expressed breast milk feeding only at 1.5 months was associated with an increased risk of breastfeeding cessation in participants supplementing with infant formula (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 1.86, 95% CI = 1.17-2.95). CONCLUSION: In the first six months postpartum, giving only expressed breast milk is associated with early breastfeeding cessation, especially in participants who are also supplementing with infant formula.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".