Motherhood after Spinal Cord Injury: Breastfeeding, Autonomic Dysreflexia, and Psychosocial Health: Clinical Practice Guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that children be breastfed exclusively for the first 6 months of age. This recommendation may prove challenging for women with spinal cord injury (SCI) who face unique challenges and barriers to breastfeeding due to the impact of SCI on mobility and physiology. Tailored provision of care from health care professionals (HCPs) is important in helping women navigate these potential barriers. Yet, HCPs often lack the confidence and SCI-specific knowledge to meet the needs of mothers with SCI. An international panel of clinicians, researchers, consultants, and women with lived experience was formed to create an accessible resource that can address this gap. A comprehensive survey on breastfeeding complications, challenges, resources, and quality of life of mothers with SCI was conducted, along with an environmental scan to evaluate existing postpartum guidelines and assess their relevance and usability as recommendations for breastfeeding after SCI. Building on this work, this article provides evidence-based recommendations for HCPs, including but not limited to general practitioners, obstetricians, pediatricians, physiatrists, lactation consultants, nurses, midwives, occupational therapists, and physiotherapists who work with prospective and current mothers with SCI.
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 | 0.009 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".