Association of breastfeeding duration with carotid intima-media thickness in later life: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To assess the relationship of breastfeeding duration with maternal ultrasound carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT) in later life. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Central database searching up to December 15, 2020, for eligible studies that reported on the breastfeeding duration and ultrasound measurement of CIMT in later life. The exposed group corresponded to breastfeeding duration ≥ 6 months whereas the control group was women with breastfeeding of shorter duration or nil breastfeeding. The methodological quality of reviewed articles was appraised using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Results are reported as the mean difference (MD) or the standardized MD (SMD) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The study was registered in the PROSPERO database. Of 532 unique studies, three studies met inclusion criteria including 1721 women with a mean age ranging between 36.6 ± 6.9 and 55.7 ± 5.3 years, comparing breastfeeding duration ≥ 6 months versus 1–5 months (NOS: 7–8). Common CIMT was lower in women who breastfed for a longer duration (SMD = −0.10, 95% CI −0.20 to −0.00). Circulating HDL-cholesterol was higher in women with longer breastfeeding duration (MD = 3.25, 95% CI 0.88–5.61). There were no significant differences for total cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol, triglycerides, glucose, and blood pressure between breastfeeding 6 or more months and the control group. The available studies showed lower CIMT and higher HDL-cholesterol levels in women who breastfed for 6 or more months as compared to controls.
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 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.027 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".