Association of Modes of Feeding with Development and Growth Percentile of 13-14 Months Toddlers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Different modes of feeding including exclusive breastfeeding, formula milk and combined milk have diverse effects on the health of toddlers. There is a need to explore the actual frequency of modes of feeding in mothers and its relationship with the development and growth percentile of toddlers. Methodology This cross-sectional study was conducted from January 2022 to June 2022 in the community of Rawalpindi and Islamabad including Hospitals, private setup and day care centers. A total of 56 Toddlers (13-14 Months old) with exclusively breastfed, formula fed and combination of both were included in this study. Data was collected by using Non-Probability Purposive Sampling Technique. Ages and stages questionnaire-3 (ASQ-3) for the assessment of 5 domains of development (i.e. communication, gross motor, fine motor, personal social and problem solving) and growth percentile was evaluated using anthropometric measurements. Data was analyzed by using SPSS version 21. Results: A significant difference was found in personal social, gross motor and communication domains with combined mode of feeding as compared to others modes of feeding in toddlers (p=0.05).There was also significant difference in growth percentile for height and weight in combined mode of feeding as compared to others mode of feeding (p<0.05).But non-significant difference in growth percentile for head circumference in combined mode of feeding was found. Conclusion: This study suggests a positive association of combined modes of feeding with communication, personal social and gross motor domain of development and with growth percentile (height and weight). Combined mode of feeding is found to be the best mode among the three groups in terms of better communication and personal social scores of development.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".