Effects of Term Infant Formulas Containing High <i>sn</i>‐2 Palmitate With and Without Oligofructose on Stool Composition, Stool Characteristics, and Bifidogenicity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Levels of stool fatty acid soaps and beneficial bacteria differ between formula-fed and breast-fed infants; addition of specific formula ingredients may reduce these differences. This study evaluated the effects of a term infant formula containing high sn-2 palmitate term infant formula (sn-2) or an identical formula supplemented with oligofructose (OF) at 2 concentrations (sn-2+3 g/L OF, sn-2+5 g/L OF) on stool composition, stool characteristics, and fecal bifidobacteria. METHODS: Healthy, term formula-fed infants 7 to 14 days old (n = 300) were randomized in a double-blind manner to receive standard formula (control), sn-2, sn-2+3 g/L OF, or sn-2+5 g/L OF for 8 weeks. Human milk (HM)-fed infants (n = 75) were studied in parallel. Stool samples were collected from all subjects at week 8 for fatty acid soaps and mineral content, and from a subset at baseline and week 8 for bifidobacteria. Stool characteristics were assessed via 3-day diary. RESULTS: The sn-2 group had 46% less stool soap palmitate (P < 0.001) and softer stools than control (20% more mushy soft stools, P = 0.026; 50% fewer formed stools, P = 0.003). Addition of OF resulted in even fewer formed stools versus control (65% fewer for sn-2+3 g/L OF, 79% fewer for sn-2+5 g/L OF), with 5 g/L OF more closely resembling that of HM-fed infants. Both sn-2 (P < 0.05) and sn-2 with OF groups (P < 0.01) had significantly higher fecal bifidobacteria concentrations than control at week 8, not differing from HM-fed infants. CONCLUSIONS: High sn-2-palmitate formulas led to reduced stool soaps, softer stools, and increased bifidobacteria, whereas addition of OF further improved stool consistency. Those modifications brought outcomes in formula-fed infants closer to that in HM-fed infants.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".