MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4254022882 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-35741/v1

Effects of three methods of breast milk expression on breastfeeding initiation, breast milk extraction and proportion of exclusive breastfeeding—an open label, randomized controlled trial

2020· preprint· en· W4254022882 on OpenAlexaff
Yun Zhou, Jiaying Ni, Chenchen Zhou, Ying Chen, Julian Little, Lin Zhang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreastfeeding Practices and Influences
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreastfeedingBreast milkLactationBreast feedingMedicineRandomized controlled trialHuman breast milkObstetricsFood scienceInternal medicinePediatricsBiologyPregnancyBiochemistryGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Direct breastfeeding hasmultiple health benefits. Some mothers need to express their breasts when directly breast feeding is unavailable after delivery . However, there is insufficient evidence regarding an effective method of breast milk expression in the absence of an infant's suction. We aimed to investigate the effects of different methods of breast milk expression on breastfeeding initiation, efficacy of breast milk extraction, and on the rate of exclusive breastfeeding at 6 months. Methods In this open-label, randomized controlled trial, the participants of mother-infant dyads separated immediately after birth for at least 6 hrs were recruited and randomly assigned (1:1:1) into three groups: (1) hand expression of breast milk; (2) sequential electrical breast pumping: and (3) simultaneous electrical breast pumping. The two primary outcome measures were the time required for initiation of breastfeeding and the milk volume expressed in a 10-minute session (direct breastfeeding in hand expression group) at 3 days and at 6 weeks; a secondary outcome was the proportion of exclusive breastfeeding at 4 and 6 months. Analysis was according to intention-to-treat. Results Between 2018 and 2019, we recruited 226 participants, of whom 154 were randomized. The time to breastfeeding initiation showed no difference between the three groups. At 3 days and at 6 weeks, the volume of breast milk produced by 10 minutes of sequential pumping or simultaneous pumping was less than that of hand pumping before direct breastfeeding, while the volume did not differ significantly between the two pumping groups. However, simultaneous breast pumping was more effective than sequential pumping both in volume and saving time in women who had established breastfeeding. The rate of exclusive breastfeeding at 4 months was 21.0%, and at 6 months 10.6%, and did not differ between the three methods of breast milk expression. Conclusions Hand expression, sequential breast pumping, or simultaneous breast pumping in absence of immediate infant suction after birth did not show differences on the time required to initiate breastfeeding, or on the rate of exclusive breastfeeding at 4 and 6 months. Trial registration This trial was registered with www.chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR1800018193) on 4 September 2018.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.337 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBreastfeeding Practices and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207