MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4226051440 · doi:10.1161/circ.145.suppl_1.p034

Abstract P034: The Association Of Breastfeeding With Lower Blood Pressure Is Stronger In Children Born Vaginally Compared To Cesarean Section

2022· article· en· W4226051440 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yipin Han, Heather J. Zhao, Mingyu Zhang, Tiange Liu, Xiumei Hong, Xiaobin Wang, Noel T. Mueller

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBirth, Development, and Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreastfeedingPopulationBreast feedingBlood pressurePediatricsCohortBreast milkObstetricsDemographyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: A recent study of mother-child pairs in Canada (Miliku et al., JAHA 2021) found that ever (vs. never) breastfeeding was associated with lower blood pressure (BP) in early childhood. The authors posited the effect is modulated by the microbiome. However, they did not examine if the breastfeeding effect is stronger in vaginally-delivered infants, whom host more bacterial species (e.g., Bifidobacteria ) that bioconvert human milk oligosaccharides into BP-lowering butyrate. Given their population was majority White, it is unknown if breastfeeding lowers BP in non-White populations. Hypothesis: Introduction to breast milk in infancy lowers BP in childhood, particularly among vaginally delivered infants, in a racially diverse population. Methods: We used data from the Boston Birth Cohort. We assessed breastfeeding status during the postnatal follow up at <2 years of age. Ever breastfeeding was defined as exclusively breastfed or a mix of breastfed and bottle-fed. We obtained repeated clinical measures of childhood systolic BP (SBP) across 0-17 years of age. We calculated age-, sex-, and height- specific child BP percentiles according to the 2017 American Academy of Pediatrics Clinical Practice Guidelines. We used linear regression with GEE with a link function and AR-1 correlation to examine the association of ever breastfeeding with child SBP. We controlled for maternal age, education, smoking, parity, pre-pregnancy BMI, hypertension, and child low birthweight, preterm birth, age, and sex. We assessed effect modification by race and delivery mode. Results: Our analytic sample comprised 19,597 BP measurements from 2,077 children, who were 52% male, 66% black, and had a mean age of 8 years. Among our sample, 33% were born preterm, 59% were vaginally delivered, and 74% were ever breastfed. Ever (vs. never) breastfeeding was associated with 1.74 percentile (95% CI: -3.66, 0.19; p=0.08) lower SBP. In children who were delivered vaginally, ever breastfeeding was associated with 2.63 percentile (95% CI: -5.12, -0.14; p=0.04) lower SBP. In contrast, among children delivered by Cesarean section, SBP percentile was not significantly reduced (95% CI: -3.45, 2.59; p=0.78) among ever breastfed. Moreover, ever breastfeeding was more strongly associated with lower BP among participants who self-identified as non-Black (3.40 percentile lower SBP; 95% CI: -6.30, -0.49; p=0.02) vs. Black (0.98 percentile lower SBP; 95% CI: -3.42, 1.45; p=0.43). Conclusion: In our racially diverse cohort, ever vs. never breastfeeding was associated with lower BP among children who were delivered vaginally, but not among those delivered by Cesarean section. The protective association of ever breastfeeding on child BP was also weaker in those born to mothers who self-identified as Black, highlighting the need for more research on the effects of breastfeeding on cardiometabolic health in racial minority groups.

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)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.081

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.002

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicBirth, Development, and Health→French-language works237,207→