Nutritional adequacy of goat milk infant formulas for term infants: a double-blind randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The safety and nutritional adequacy of goat milk infant formulas have been questioned. The primary aim of the present study was to compare the growth and nutritional status of infants fed a goat milk infant formula with those of infants fed a typical whey-based cow milk infant formula. The secondary aim was to examine a range of health- and allergy-related outcomes. A double-blind, randomised controlled trial with 200 formula-fed term infants randomly assigned to receive either goat or cow milk formula from 2 weeks to at least 4 months of age was conducted. A cohort of 101 breast-fed infants was included for comparison. Weight, length and head circumference were measured at 2 weeks and 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 12 months of age. Nutritional status was assessed from serum albumin, urea, creatinine, Hb, ferritin, and folate and plasma amino acid concentrations at 4 months. Z-scores for weight, length, head circumference and weight for length were not different between the two formula-fed groups. There were differences in the values of some amino acids and blood biomarkers between the formula-fed groups, but the mean values for biomarkers were within the normal reference range. There were no differences in the occurrence of serious adverse events, general health, and incidence of dermatitis or medically diagnosed food allergy. The incidence of parentally reported blood-stained stools was higher in the goat milk formula-fed group, although this was a secondary outcome and its importance is unclear. Goat milk formula provided growth and nutritional outcomes in infants that did not differ from those provided by a standard whey-based cow milk formula.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".