MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3202322305

Exclusive Breastfeeding in Infants of HIV-Positive Mothers: Do the Pros Outweigh the Cons? A Literature Review

2021· review· en· W3202322305 on OpenAlexaff
Mary Attalla

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Health: Annual Review · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreastfeeding Practices and Influences
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreastfeedingNeglectMedicineHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Developing countryconsEnvironmental healthPediatricsFamily medicineObstetricsNursingEconomic growth
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Current guidelines in many developed countries urge women who are HIV-positive to formula feed (FF) and neglect to consider the possibility of breastfeeding (BF). This paper emphasizes the benefits of exclusive breastfeeding (EBF) on infant and maternal health and well-being. Many studies emphasize the importance of EBF in reducing infant mortality compared to mixed-breastfeeding (MBF) or FF. Further studies concluded that when HIV-positive mothers are on antiretroviral therapies (ART), the chance of mother-to-child transmission (MTCT) is minimal (approximately 1%). This paper provides insight for policy-makers in developed countries to promote change in BF guidelines for all women, reduce MTCT of HIV, and allow women to choose their feeding preferences.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.389 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Health: Annual ReviewSame topicBreastfeeding Practices and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207