Use of At-Breast Supplementers to Facilitate Feeding Solely at the Breast for Infants with Retrognathia: Two Case Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Infants with significant retrognathia often have difficulty forming a latch adequate to establish exclusive breastfeeding. This article describes the use of at-breast supplementers (ABSs) to facilitate extended breastfeeding relationships, even when supplementation is necessary for growth. Methods: Two cases are described where infants with severe retrognathia initially struggled with weight gain necessitating supplementation but were able to ultimately exclusively feed at-breast with the use of ABSs. Results: While the two cases differed in the form of supplemental milk used and duration of ABS use, both dyads breastfed for beyond 2 years. Conclusions: Feeding solely at the breast and subsequent extended breastfeeding may be possible even for infants who require supplementation, including those with anatomical or functional challenges such as retrognathia. The ABS is a relatively simple system that may be beneficial for difficulties such as poor latch and low milk supply. More awareness and education is needed so that clinicians consider supporting dyads with this approach.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".