Breastfeeding supports growth in small for gestational age infants: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim Small for gestational age is defined as birthweight <10th percentile on standardised age and sex‐specific growth charts. Rapid catch‐up growth seen post‐natal is associated with adiposity and cardiometabolic syndromes later in life. Breastfeeding has positive effects on growth in premature and low‐birthweight infants. Therefore, examining the impact of exclusive breastfeeding on growth parameters in small for gestational age infants is important. Methods The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses statement and checklist guided review and meta‐analysis. Four databases were searched. Results Five articles (4702 infants) met inclusion criteria. The effect of 4–6 months of breastfeeding on growth was measured using weight, length, head circumference, z‐scores and change between timepoints. Study quality was considered very low using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation tool. Random effects models assessed the effect of breastfeeding on weight and length catch‐up growth. Differences in weight and length were seen (−8.36, 95%CI: −11.26 to −5.46 and −7.50, 95%CI: −1.92 to −4.18, p < 0.001), with substantial heterogeneity ( I 2 > 90%). Conclusions Breastmilk supports growth in small for gestational age infants, though limited evidence exists for catch‐up growth in the first 6 months. The magnitude and direction of the effect could not be determined.
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) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".