Review of current best practices for human milk banking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mother's/parent milk is the optimal way to feed infants and when unavailable, supplemental donor human milk is preferred. A safe supply of donor human milk should be available for all low birthweight infants for whom it has been shown to reduce morbidity. Human milk banking has been in existence for more than a century, although largely shut down during the 1980s, primarily due to fears of human immunodeficiency virus transmission. With renewed security in milk banking, has come an exponential growth in human donor milk use. Guidelines for milk banking have been published in many countries including Australia, France, India, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the nonprofit organization PATH. The European Milk Bank Association and the Human Milk Banking Association of North America have also published recommendations for milk banks throughout Europe and North America, respectively. Although there is variability among these guidelines, there is general consensus on quality control measures required to provide a supply of safe donor milk. These measures include effective donor screening, safe collection, transport and storage of milk, standardized pasteurization and bacteriological testing. Operational considerations are also critical, such as appropriate training for staff, equipment maintenance and cleaning, protocol and record keeping and inspection and accreditation. Clearly delineating these key quality control measures provides an excellent foundation for establishing international guidelines. Acceptable modifications must be established for low- and middle-income countries that do not have sufficient resources; overly burdensome guidelines may make establishing a milk bank unnecessarily prohibitive. This review presents a summary of current best practices for human milk banking.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".