MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1984727389 · doi:10.3390/nu2111156

Early Exposure to Soy Isoflavones and Effects on Reproductive Health: A Review of Human and Animal Studies

2010· review· en· W1984727389 on OpenAlexafffund
Elsa Dinsdale, Wendy E. Ward

Bibliographic record

VenueNutrients · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhytoestrogen effects and research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchWellcome Trust
KeywordsIsoflavonesPhytoestrogensSoy proteinSOY ISOFLAVONESAnimal studiesPhysiologyHuman studiesHormoneHealth benefitsMedicineHuman healthBiologyBiotechnologyEnvironmental healthFood scienceEndocrinologyEstrogenTraditional medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Soy isoflavones are phytoestrogens with potential hormonal activity due to their similar chemical structure to 17-β-estradiol. The increasing availability of soy isoflavones throughout the food supply and through use of supplements has prompted extensive research on biological benefits to humans in chronic disease prevention and health maintenance. While much of this research has focused on adult populations, infants fed soy protein based infant formulas are exposed to substantial levels of soy isoflavones, even when compared to adult populations that consume a higher quantity of soy-based foods. Infant exposure, through soy formula, primarily occurs from birth to one year of life, a stage of development that is particularly sensitive to dietary and environmental compounds. This has led investigators to study the potential hormonal effects of soy isoflavones on later reproductive health outcomes. Such studies have included minimal human data with the large majority of studies using animal models. This review discusses key aspects of the current human and animal studies and identifies critical areas to be investigated as there is no clear consensus in this research field.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.567
Threshold uncertainty score0.947

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.373 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations69
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNutrientsSame topicPhytoestrogen effects and researchFrench-language works237,207