Canadian Pediatric & Perinatal HIV/AIDS Research Group consensus recommendations for infant feeding in the HIV context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Providing comprehensive infant feeding guidance to families affected by HIV is complex and requires a multidisciplinary approach. While exclusive formula feeding remains the preferred recommendation for infants born to women living with HIV (WLWH) in high-income countries, a more nuanced approach that may include the option of breastfeeding under certain circumstances is emerging in many resource-rich countries. Methods: The Canadian Pediatric & Perinatal HIV/AIDS Research Group (CPARG) hosted a Canadian Institute of Health Research-funded meeting in 2016 to develop consensus among multidisciplinary providers around counselling and recommendations for infant feeding. After presentations by adult and paediatric health care providers, basic scientists, and community-based researchers, a subgroup drafted summary evidence-informed recommendations. Along with revisions among CPARG members, a community review was performed by a convenience sample of WLWH who had given birth in the past 5 years from Ontario and Quebec. A legal review was also conducted to ensure understanding of the criminalization potential and concern of HIV transmission and exposure. Results: The Canadian consensus guidelines continue to support formula feeding as the preferred method of infant feeding as it eliminates any residual risk of postnatal vertical transmission. Formula should be made available for all infants born to mothers living with HIV for their first year of life. A comprehensive approach to counselling WLWH is outlined to assist providers to effectively counsel on current evidence to ensure WLWH are fully informed in their decision making. For women meeting criteria to and elect to breastfeed, frequent maternal virologic monitoring and follow-up is required of both mother and infant. Antiretroviral prophylaxis and monitoring are recommended for breastfed infants. The community review highlighted the importance of other supports and counselling needed for implementing effective formula feeding, aside from access to formula. The legal review provided clarifying language around child protection services involvement and the need to provide referral to legal resources or information upon request. Surveillance systems to monitor for cases of breastmilk transmission should be in place to improve gaps in care and develop further knowledge in this area. Conclusion: The Canadian infant feeding consensus guideline is designed to inform and enable better care for WLWH and their babies. Ongoing evaluation of these guidelines as new evidence emerges will be important.
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 | 0.062 | 0.146 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.004 |
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".