Early Breast Milk Volumes and Response to Galactogogue Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of galactogogue management in mothers of very preterm infants with varying breast milk volumes prior to initiating this treatment. Data were utilized from 90 women who participated in a trial employing domperidone. Three groups were formed according to their breast milk volumes (based on their infants’ birth weight) at the time of randomization and study entry to the trial protocol: (1) ≤100 mL/kg/d; (2) 101–200 mL/kg/d; and (3) ≥201 mL/kg/d. Breast milk volumes were evaluated at the 14- and 28-day study treatment periods. All three groups showed a significant volume increase and volume percent increase both at the 14-day measure and also the 28-day measure. Mothers who started in the two lower volume groups showed the greatest % volume change overall, with 356.2% in the ≤100 mL/kg/d and 106.1% in the 101–200 mL/kg/d groups, compared to those mothers in the higher group of ≥201 mL/kg/d, showing a change of 45.2%, where p = 0.001. Mothers producing varying low volumes were able to demonstrate an effect from the use of domperidone and increase their volumes as much as three-hundred-fold over 14- and 28-day study periods. However, those mothers whose volumes were ≤100 mL/kg/d continued to maintain low absolute milk volumes, putting these mothers at ongoing risk of ceasing lactation.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".