Evaluation of Methods of Breast or Bottle Feeding on Length of Hospitalization of Preterm Infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Direct breastfeeding is the optimal method of nourishing preterm infants. Preconceived notions exist among health practitioners that establishment of direct breastfeeding lengthens hospitalization. Thus far, the aforementioned association remains unknown. Research Aim: The objective of this study was to assess the impact of direct breastfeeding establishment on length of hospital stay in preterm infants. Methods: A retrospective chart review on a sample of 101 mother–infant dyads was conducted in the neonatal intensive care unit at Kingston Health Sciences Center (KHSC) in Ontario, Canada. The sample consisted of three groups: (1) modified direct breastfeeding group, defined as infants receiving ≥50% direct breastfeeds during hospitalization, (2) partial breastfeeding group, defined as infants receiving <50% breastfeeds during hospitalization, and (3) bottle feeding group, defined as infants only receiving bottle feeds during hospitalization. A multiple linear regression model was performed to assess the relationship between length of hospitalization and method of oral feeds (modified direct breastfeeds vs. partial breastfeeds vs. bottle feeds) while controlling for infant (gestational age [GA], birth weight, 5 minutes Apgar score, ventilator support) and maternal (age, first-time mother, mental health conditions) factors. Results: GA was inversely associated with length of hospitalization. The number of days on ventilator support was positively associated with length of hospitalization. Method of oral feed, birth weight, 5 minutes Apgar score, maternal age, first-time mother status, and maternal mental health conditions were not associated with duration of hospitalization. Conclusions: Direct breastfeeding establishment does not lengthen hospitalization in preterm infants. This finding may aid health practitioners in increasing direct breastfeeding success in this population.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".