Submitted:
18 July 2025
Posted:
21 July 2025
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Design and Setting
2.2. Participants
2.3. Intervention
2.4. Data Collection
2.5. Measures
2.6. Ethical Considerations
3. Results
3.1. Participant Flow
3.2. Participant Characteristics
3.3. Analysis of AI Feedback and User Evaluation
3.4. Breastfeeding Status at Hospitalization and One-Month Check-Up
3.5. Maternal Perception of Breastfeeding
4. Discussion
4.1. Participant Characteristics and Baseline Trends
4.2. System Feasibility and Safety
4.3. Maternal Feedback and Usability
4.4. Impact on Breastfeeding Experience
4.5. Practical and Ethical Challenges
4.6. Clinical Implications and Future Directions
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
| AI | Artificial Intelligence |
| BSES-SF | Breastfeeding Self-Efficacy Scale–Short Form |
References
- Buck, M. L., Amir, L. H., Cullinane, M., & Donath, S. M. Nipple pain, damage, and vasospasm in the first 8 weeks postpartum. Birth 2014, 41(2), 125–132. [CrossRef]
- Kent, J. C., Ashton, E., Hardwick, C. M., & Rowan, M. K. Nipple pain during breastfeeding. Breastfeed Med 2015, 10(9), 453–458. [CrossRef]
- Odom, E. C., Li, R., Scanlon, K. S., Perrine, C. G., & Grummer-Strawn, L. Reasons for earlier than desired cessation of breastfeeding. Pediatrics 2013, 131(3), e726–e732. [CrossRef]
- Yamakawa, S., Haga, C., Ogino, Y., et al. Characteristics and challenges of breastfeeding support in Japanese nuclear families: A qualitative study. Jpn J Public Health 2020, 67(4), 312–319. [in Japanese].
- Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. National Survey on Child Health and Development 2021. Available online: https://www.mhlw.go.jp/toukei/list/85-1a.html (accessed on 1 May 2025).
- Sun, Y., Gao, Y., Zhu, Z. et al. (2023). Effect of online intervention mode on breastfeeding results: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Reproductive Health, 20, 164. [CrossRef]
- Liu, Y., Jain, A., Eng, C., et al. A deep learning system for differential diagnosis of skin diseases. Nat Med 2020, 26(6), 900–908. 6. [CrossRef]
- Esteva, A., Kuprel, B., Novoa, R. A., et al. Dermatologist-level classification of skin cancer with deep neural networks. Nature 2017, 542(7639), 115–118. [CrossRef]
- Nakamura, M.; Sugimori, H.; Ebina, Y. Development of Nipple Trauma Evaluation System With Deep Learning. J. Hum. Lact. 2025, 41(1), 105–114. [CrossRef]
- Cirico, M. O. Cirico, M. O., Shimoda, G. T., & Oliveira, R. N. Healthcare quality in breastfeeding: Implementation of the nipple trauma index. Rev Gaucha Enferm 2017, 37(4), e60546. [CrossRef]
- Otsuka, K., Dennis, C. L., Tatsuoka, H., & Jimba, M. (2008). The relationship between breastfeeding self-efficacy and perceived insufficient milk among Japanese mothers. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, and Neonatal Nursing, 37(5), 546–555. 1. [CrossRef]
- Nanishi K, Green J, Taguri M, Jimba M. Determining a Cut-Off Point for Scores of the Breastfeeding Self-Efficacy Scale-Short Form: Secondary Data Analysis of an Intervention Study in Japan. PLoS One. 2015;10(6):e0129698. Published 2015 Jun 24. [CrossRef]
- Hongo, H., Green, J., Shibanuma, A., Nanishi, K., & Jimba, M. (2020). The Influence of Breastfeeding Peer Support on Breastfeeding Satisfaction Among Japanese Mothers: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of human lactation: official journal of International Lactation Consultant Association, 36(2), 337–347. [CrossRef]
- Ericson, J.; Flacking, R. Mothers' experiences and perceptions of breastfeeding support in neonatal intensive care units. J Clin Nurs 2021, 30(3–4), 400–409. [CrossRef]
- Nakamura, M., Sugimori, H., Asaka, Y., & Ebina, Y. (2025). Role of Silver Nipple Protectors in Treating Nipple Trauma: A Non-Randomized Comparative Trial. Journal of human lactation: official journal of International Lactation Consultant Association, 41(3), 382–391. [CrossRef]
- Ahmed, A. H., & Roumani, A. M. (2020). Breastfeeding Monitoring Improves Maternal Self-Efficacy and Satisfaction. MCN: The American Journal of Maternal Child Nursing, 45(6), 357–363. [CrossRef]




| Characteristic | Intervention Group (n = 8) n (%) | Control Group (n = 15) n (%) | χ² / t | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primiparous | 5(62.5%) | 12(80.0%) | 0.29 | |
| Age (years), mean ± SD | 34.1±3.09 | 29.2±2.93 | <0.01 | |
| Currently employed | 6(75.0%) | 11(73.3%) | 1 | |
| Financial concerns | 2(25.0%) | 5(33.3%) | 1 | |
| Living with others besides husband/children | 0(0.0%) | 1(6.6%) | 1 | |
| Gestational diabetes or threatened preterm labor | 1(12.5%) | 2(13.3%) | 1 | |
| Breastfeeding experience | 0.46 | |||
| No prior experience | 5(62.5%) | 12(80.0%) | ||
| Exclusive breastfeeding | 1(12.5%) | 2(13.3%) | ||
| Mixed feeding | 2(25.0%) | 1(6.6%) | ||
| Formula only | 0(0.0%) | 0(0.0%) | ||
| Intention to breastfeed during pregnancy | 0.09 | |||
| Strong desire to breastfeed | 1(12.5%) | 2(13.3%) | ||
| Willing to breastfeed if milk is available | 4(50.0%) | 13(86.6%) | ||
| I intend to use formula | 1(12.5%) | 0(0.0%) | ||
| No plan | 2(25.0%) | 0(0.0%) | ||
| Gestational age at birth (weeks), mean ± SD | 39.1±1.24 | 39.0±1.03 | 0.98 | |
| Delivery mode | 0.49 | |||
| Vaginal delivery without anesthesia | 4(50.0%) | 8(53.3%) | ||
| Painless delivery (epidural, etc.) | 4(50.0%) | 5(33.3%) | ||
| Cesarean section | 0(0.0%) | 2(13.3%) |
| Participant No. | Analysis Result | Probability of Result | Nipple | Postpartum Day of Imaging | Days Required for Feedback |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Red | 90-100% | Left | Day 4 | 0 days |
| 2 | Red | 100% | Left | Day 3 | 0 days |
| 3 | Green | 40-50% | Right | Day 2 | 2 days |
| 4 | Yellow | 40-50% | Right | Day 1 | 1 day |
| 5 | Red | 90-100% | Left | Day 4 | 2 days |
| 6 | Red | 70-80% | Left | Day 2 | 2 days |
| 7 | Red | 80-90% | Left | Day 1 | 1 day |
| 8 | Yellow | 60-70% | Right | Day 2 | 2 days |
| During Hospitalization | One-Month Checkup | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention Group (n = 8) n (%) |
Control Group (n = 15) n (%) |
χ² | p | Intervention Group (n = 8) n (%) |
Control Group (n = 15) n (%) |
χ² | p | |
| Feeding method within 24 hours | 0.13 | 0.09 | ||||||
| - Exclusively breastfeeding | 0(0.0%) | 2(13.3%) | 1(12.5%) | 7(46.6%) | ||||
| - Mixed feeding (mostly breast milk) | 5(62.5%) | 12(80.0%) | 6(75.0%) | 5(33.3%) | ||||
| - Mixed feeding (mostly formula) | 3(37.5%) | 1(6.6%) | 1(12.5%) | 2(13.3%) | ||||
| - Formula only | 0(0.0%) | 0(0.0%) | 0(0.0%) | 1(6.6%) | ||||
| During Hospitalization | One-Month Checkup | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention Group (n = 8) n (%) |
Control Group (n = 15) n (%) |
χ² | p | Intervention Group (n = 8) n (%) |
Control Group (n = 15) n (%) |
χ² | p | |
| Perception of the breastfeeding method | 0.03 | 1 | ||||||
| Satisfied | 2(25.0%) | 10(66.6%) | 5(62.5%) | 11(73.3%) | ||||
| Somewhat satisfied | 3(37.5%) | 5(33.3%) | 2(25.0%) | 4(26.6%) | ||||
| Not satisfied | 3(37.5%) | 0(0.0%) | 0(0.0%) | 0(0.0%) | ||||
| BSES-SF | 31.0±4.34 | 38.8±12.47 | 0.06 | 40.87±11.24 | 46.66±12.94 | 0.36 | ||
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).