Breastfeeding Following Spinal Cord Injury: A Descriptive Population Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: There is little in the current literature regarding breastfeeding after a previous spinal cord injury (SCI). Potential concerns include challenges with let-down reflex and autonomic dysreflexia. This study aims to assess SCI- specific breastfeeding challenges as well as duration of breastfeeding in this population. Methods: This study is a subgroup analysis of a larger online international questionnaire distributed to women with SCI. Pregnancies following SCI resulting in live births >20 weeks were included. Demographic information, breastfeeding outcomes, and perceived support were assessed. Results: The recruitment rate was 85.4% (1,056/1,237) and completion rate was 73.8% (780/1,056). The pregnancies were from individuals with SCI levels C1–T9. 129/159 live births were followed by an attempt to breastfeed, and of these, 111 were successful in breastfeeding for a minimum of 2 weeks. Nine were affected by autonomic dysreflexia (AD). For 4/9 (44%) individuals, it was their first episode of AD. If a person had previous episodes of AD, there was a 2/52 (4%) chance of this being triggered by breastfeeding. In total, 28/210 (13%) had difficulty with let-down reflex (levels ranged from C4 to S1). Conclusions: Overall the majority of people who had a pregnancy following SCI attempted to and were successful in breastfeeding for at least 2 weeks. This outcome was regardless of the level of injury. Barriers in the form of AD or difficulty with let-down reflex were uncommon. This observational study should help encourage pregnant women post SCI and provide support for counseling by their health care providers.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".