MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2088951118 · doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2014.05.005

Rapid measurement of macronutrients in breast milk: How reliable are infrared milk analyzers?

2014· article· en· W2088951118 on OpenAlexafffund
Gerhard Fusch, Niels Rochow, Arum Choi, Stephanie Fusch, Susanna Poeschl, Adelaide Obianuju Ubah, Sau-Young Lee, P. Kumar Raja, Christoph Fusch

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Nutrition · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicInfant Nutrition and Health
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersMcMaster UniversityCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAutism Speaks
KeywordsBreast milkLactoseMedicineSpectrum analyzerFood scienceAnimal scienceChemistryBiologyBiochemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Significant biological variation in macronutrient content of breast milk is an important barrier that needs to be overcome to meet nutritional needs of preterm infants. To analyze macronutrient content, commercial infrared milk analyzers have been proposed as efficient and practical tools in terms of efficiency and practicality. Since milk analyzers were originally developed for the dairy industry, they must be validated using a significant number of human milk samples that represent the broad range of variation in macronutrient content in preterm and term milk. Aim of this study was to validate two milk analyzers for breast milk analysis with reference methods and to determine an effective sample pretreatment. Current evidence for the influence of (i) aliquoting, (ii) storage time and (iii) temperature, and (iv) vessel wall adsorption on stability and availability of macronutrients in frozen breast milk is reviewed. METHODS: Breast milk samples (n = 1188) were collected from 63 mothers of preterm and term infants. Milk analyzers: (A) Near-infrared milk analyzer (Unity SpectraStar, USA) and (B) Mid-infrared milk analyzer (Miris, Sweden) were compared to reference methods, e.g. ether extraction, elemental analysis, and UPLC-MS/MS for fat, protein, and lactose, respectively. RESULTS: For fat analysis, (A) measured precisely but not accurately (y = 0.55x + 1.25, r(2) = 0.85), whereas (B) measured precisely and accurately (y = 0.93x + 0.18, r(2) = 0.86). For protein analysis, (A) was precise but not accurate (y = 0.55x + 0.54, r(2) = 0.67) while (B) was both precise and accurate (y = 0.78x + 0.05, r(2) = 0.73). For lactose analysis, both devices (A) and (B) showed two distinct concentration levels and measured therefore neither accurately nor precisely (y = 0.02x + 5.69, r(2) = 0.01 and y = -0.09x + 6.62, r(2) = 0.02 respectively). Macronutrient levels were unchanged in two independent samples of stored breast milk (-20 °C measured with IR; -80 °C measured with wet chemistry) over a period of 14 months. CONCLUSIONS: Milk analyzers in the current configuration have the potential to be introduced in clinical routine to measure fat and protein content, but will need major adjustments.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.036
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.099
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.964
Threshold uncertainty score0.189

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0360.099
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0060.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designObservational
DomainMethods
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

Citations136
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueClinical Nutrition→Same topicInfant Nutrition and Health→French-language works237,207→