Breastfeeding and Bone Mineral Density in Adults Ages 30-46 in The Manitoba Personalized Lifestyle Research (TMPLR) Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Osteoporosis is a major risk factor for debilitating fractures in geriatric populations. It is increasingly recognized that osteoporosis originates in early life, long before symptoms manifest in late adulthood. Breastfeeding is proposed to “program” skeletal development, however, there is a lack of consensus on the effects of breastfeeding on bone mineral density (BMD), and few studies have investigated this association in adulthood. To address this knowledge gap, we used data from 408 participants ages 30-46 years in the cross-sectional TMPLR study. Feeding in infancy was self-reported (any breastfeeding, breastfeeding duration and any formula feeding) and validated against maternal report for a subset of participants. Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DXA) was used to measure BMD at the whole body, femoral neck, non-dominant forearm, and lumbar spine (L1-L4 vertebrae). Independent of current age, sex, height, weight, alcohol consumption, physical activity, current and early life socioeconomic status, being breastfed was associated with significantly higher whole body BMD (adjusted beta estimate +22.7 mg/cm2, 95% CI [0.3, 45.1], equivalent to +1.9%, p=0.046). Similar trends were observed at the femoral neck, forearm and lumbar spine, but these associations were not significant in adjusted models. Unexpectedly, these associations tended to be stronger among those who were partially breastfed (breast milk and formula) than those who were fully breastfed (breast milk only). There was no apparent dose-response relationship according to the duration of breastfeeding. In summary, this study suggests that breastfeeding may contribute to a small but potentially clinically relevant increase in whole body BMD in mid-adulthood.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".