MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117555871 · doi:10.1016/j.advnut.2025.100581

The Impact of Donating Human Milk on the Health of the Donor and Their Infant: Evidence from Two Systematic Reviews

2025· article· en· W7117555871 on OpenAlexaff
Kendall E. Baier, Alaina Berg, Abigail Smith, James A. Evans, Jaimie Rogner, Mohammed H. Murad, Tarah T. Colaizy, Zulfiqar A. Bhutta, Aamer Imdad

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Nutrition · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicInfant Nutrition and Health
Canadian institutionsCentre for Global Health Research
FundersWorld Health Organization
KeywordsDonationBreast milkSystematic reviewLactationBreastfeedingPregnancyPsychological interventionLow birth weight

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using human milk has been associated with decreased morbidity and mortality in preterm/low birth weight infants. Donor human milk is recommended when maternal milk is unavailable. The benefits of donor human milk for the recipient are well documented, but the impact of donation on donors and their infants is not clear. We aimed to evaluate the effects of donation human milk on donors and their infants. Literature searches were conducted (April 2024) to identify studies (observational, quasi-experimental, and randomized control trials) assessing the impact of human milk donation on donor health, nutrition, well-being, and lactation and on their infants' health, growth, and development. Bias was assessed using the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions scale. Meta-analysis was conducted when possible. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. Nine studies examined donor outcomes, and 6 studies examined donor infant outcomes. No differences were found between donors and nondonors regarding the prevalence of overweight [risk ratio (RR): 1.27; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.81, 2.01], postpartum depression (RR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.21, 1.72), postpartum anxiety (RR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.59, 1.18), need to pump for their infant (RR: 1.09; 95% CI: 0.63, 1.89), mastitis (RR: 1.48; 95% CI: 0.71, 3.05), chapped/cracked nipples (RR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.34, 1.12), and breast engorgement (RR: 1.88; 95% CI: 0.94, 3.77). Similarly, no differences were found between donor and nondonor infants regarding feeding intolerance (vomiting) (RR: 1.26; 95% CI: 0.53, 3.01), slow weight gain (RR: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.13, 1.02), oral thrush (RR: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.12, 2.37), or need for phototherapy (RR: 2.21; 95% CI: 0.93, 5.23). The certainty of evidence was very low for all outcomes. Limited, very low certainty evidence does not support any short-term harms or benefits of human milk donation for donors or their infants. The protocols for both studies were registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) on March 26, 2024. Study IDs: CRD42024529222 and CRD42024528803.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.275
Threshold uncertainty score0.346

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.364 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in NutritionSame topicInfant Nutrition and HealthFrench-language works237,207