MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W93858523

Breast is best for babies.

2005· article· en· W93858523 on OpenAlexaff
Alexander K. C. Leung, Reginald S. Sauve

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreastfeeding Practices and Influences
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreastfeedingMedicineBreast milkBreast feedingMastitisObstetricsPediatrics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Breastfeeding is the optimal method of infant feeding. Breast milk provides almost all the necessary nutrients, growth factors and immunological components a healthy term infant needs, Other advantages of breastfeeding include reduction of incidences and severity of infections; prevention of allergies; possible enhancement of cognitive development; and prevention of obesity, hypertension and insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Health gains for breastfeeding mothers include lactation amenorrhea, early involution of the uterus, enhanced bonding between the mother and the infant, and reduction in incidence of ovarian and breast cancer. From the economic perspective, breastfeeding is less expensive than formula feeding. In most cases, maternal ingestion of medications and maternal infections are not contraindications to breastfeeding. Breastfeeding, however, is contraindicated in infants with galactosemia. The management of common breastfeeding issues, such as breast engorgement, sore nipples, mastitis and insufficient milk, is discussed. Breastfeeding should be initiated as soon after delivery as possible. To promote, protect and support breastfeeding, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) developed the Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) 10 Steps to Successful Breastfeeding. Healthcare professionals have an important role to play in promoting and protecting breastfeeding.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.971
Threshold uncertainty score0.245

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations121
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicBreastfeeding Practices and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207