MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070686701 · doi:10.1080/0963748031000092152

Docosahexaenoic acid level of the breast milk of some Filipino women

2003· article· en· W2070686701 on OpenAlexaffabout
Cecile Leah P. Tiangson, Victor C. Gavino, Grace Gavino, Leonora N. Panlasigui

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicFatty Acid Research and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDocosahexaenoic acidBreast milkFood scienceMedicineEnvironmental healthPhysiologyObstetricsTraditional medicineChemistryFatty acidBiochemistryPolyunsaturated fatty acid

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study was conducted to determine the docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) level of the breast milk of 100 Filipino women as affected by diet. The subject distribution was patterned after the 1997 Family and Income Expenditure Survey of the National Statistics Office regarding the total number of families, and the total and average family income and expenditures by income class in an urban area. The subjects were asked to complete a 3-day food record and food frequency questionnaire to ascertain the nutrient content of their food intake and approximate eating habits. Hind milk was drawn manually by means of a fabricated glass breast pump and collected in polypropylene vials. The milk samples were stored in a freezer maintained at -25+/-2 degrees C until they were transported to the University of Montreal for fatty acid composition. The milk was methylated using the Lepage and Roy method. The obtained fatty acid methyl esters were analyzed by gas chromatography. Results showed that the milk samples contain an average of 188.34 microg DHA/ml milk, while %DHA of the samples is 0.65%. Regression analysis revealed that mean protein intake of the subjects was a determinant of the DHA level in the milk samples.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.133

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations12
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Food Sciences and NutritionSame topicFatty Acid Research and HealthFrench-language works237,207