Meta-analysis of a partially hydrolysed 100%-whey infant formula vs. extensively hydrolysed infant formulas in the prevention of atopic dermatitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study presents previously unpublished point and cumulative incidence rates and relative risks (RRs) for comparing a partially hydrolysed 100% whey-based infant formula, NAN-HA * (PHF-W) to extensively hydrolysed whey- (EHF-Whey) or casein-based (EHF-Casein) infant formulas in the prevention of atopic dermatitis (AD) in infants who cannot be breastfed exclusively. It also outlines methods to convert the above-mentioned data as well as data comparing PHF-W to cows' milk formula (SF) into inputs to be applied to a pharmacoeconomic model. * NAN-HA is a registered trade name of Nestlé SA, Switzerland. METHODS: The incidence rates and RRs were obtained from a meta-analysis which analysed efficacy for PHF-W vs. EHF but did not present those. It took into consideration any relevant randomized controlled trial which compared the use of PHF-W with SF or EHF for the prevention of allergies. The primary outcomes of interest were the incidence, cumulative incidence and period prevalence of allergic manifestations and of AD in particular. Fifteen studies had been included for analysis of which six studies explored PHF-W vs. EHF. These results and PHF-W vs. SF data were adapted for inputs into a pharmacoeconomic model which used a spreadsheet decision-analytic economic model based on 3-month cycles to explore the cost-effectiveness of PHF-W vs. SF and EHF. Weights were applied to the incidence rates and RRs for each reported time period which were then adapted into 3-month indicators. RESULTS: This meta-analysis for PHF-W (557 patients) vs. EHF-Whey (559 patients) yielded RR of 0.75 (0.54, 1.05) and 0.80 (0.63, 1.02) at 0-12 months and at 0-36 months, respectively. Corresponding RRs for PHF-W vs. EHF-Casein (580 patients) were 1.06 (0.74, 1.53) at 0-12 months and 1.13 (0.87, 1.47) at 0-36 months. CONCLUSION: It appears that the efficacy of PHF-W falls within the range of that of both EHF formulas (whey and casein) and allows the application of these results in a pharmacoeconomic model.
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 | 0.023 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.066 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".