BENEFITS OF A “PUMP-AND-DUMP” BREASTFEEDING STRATEGY FOR AN INFANT OF A NURSING MOTHER RECEIVING INTRAVITREAL RANIBIZUMAB
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To assess the safety of a “pump-and-dump” breastfeeding strategy following intravitreal ranibizumab in a nursing mother. Methods: Pilot study included one treatment-naïve nursing mother (patient A) requiring intravitreal ranibizumab, her newborn (patient B), and four age-matched infant controls. Patient A received ranibizumab 4 days postpartum in the right eye and 1 week later in the left eye. Breastmilk was pumped and discarded for 3 days after each injection, after which breastfeeding was resumed. Breastmilk samples from patient A and blood samples from patient B and controls were collected and measured for ranibizumab and vascular endothelial growth factor-A levels. Results: Ranibizumab was undetectable in patient B and controls. Vascular endothelial growth factor-A levels in patient B were below the lower limit of quantification (LLOQ) at baseline and then remained at low but detectable levels at other time points once breastfeeding had been resumed, which were similar to vascular endothelial growth factor-A levels in controls. Breastmilk ranibizumab levels remained below the LLOQ, and decreasing vascular endothelial growth factor-A levels were observed from baseline (5,266 pg/mL) to Day 4 (1,626 pg/mL), with fluctuating levels thereafter. Conclusion: Ranibizumab was undetectable with no apparent vascular endothelial growth factor-A suppression in the infant of a nursing mother who received intravitreal ranibizumab and breastfed after a 3-day “pump-and-dump” strategy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".