Infant gut microbiota and the hygiene hypothesis of allergic disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inverse associations between allergic disease and having pets or siblings are commonly attributed to the hygiene hypothesis. As an extension, one could posit that a less diverse gut microbiome in the infant, also linked with the development of allergic disease, would be a function of fewer microbes in the home environment. Piglet studies, however, indicate that greater microbe diversity in the environment actually leads to reduced diversity of the gut microbiota. In this study, we characterize the infant gut microbiota in relation to environmental factors traditionally associated with the hygiene hypothesis. The study comprised a small sub-sample of 24 infants from the Canadian Healthy Infant Longitudinal Development (CHILD) birth cohort. Birth mode was obtained from medical records, and mothers reported on pets, siblings, and breastfeeding. Fecal samples were collected at age 4 months, and microbiota composition was characterized by high-throughput 16S rRNA sequencing. As reported by others, breastfed infants had lower microbiota richness and diversity compared to formula-fed infants. Microbiota richness and diversity were increased in infants living with pets, whereas these measures were decreased in infants with older siblings. Infants living with pets exhibited under-representation of Bifidobacteriaceae and over-representation of Peptostreptococcaceae; infants with older siblings exhibited under-representation of Peptostreptococcaceae. Two traditionally protective “hygiene hypothesis” factors have opposite effects on infant gut microbiota diversity, while apparently selecting for distinct combinations of intestinal microbes. This suggests that microbiota composition, rather than diversity, may be the more important driver of the “microflora hypothesis” of allergic disease.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".