Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adult assimilation of lactose divides humans into dominant lactase-persistent and recessive nonpersistent phenotypes. OBJECTIVES: To review three medical parameters of lactose digestion, namely: the changing concept of lactose intolerance; the possible impact on diseases of microbial adaptation in lactase-nonpersistent populations; and the possibility that the evolution of lactase has influenced some disease pattern distributions. METHODS: A PubMed, Google Scholar and manual review of articles were used to provide a narrative review of the topic. RESULTS: The concept of lactose intolerance is changing and merging with food intolerances. Microbial adaptation to regular lactose consumption in lactase-nonpersistent individuals is supported by limited evidence. There is evidence suggestive of a relationship among geographical distributions of latitude, sunhine exposure and lactase proportional distributions worldwide. DISCUSSION: The definition of lactose intolerance has shifted away from association with lactose maldigestion. Lactose sensitivity is described equally in lactose digesters and maldigesters. The important medical consequence of withholding dairy foods could have a detrimental impact on several diseases; in addition, microbial adaptation in lactase-nonpersistent populations may alter risk for some diseases. There is suggestive evidence that the emergence of lactase persistence, together with human migrations before and after the emergence of lactase persistence, have impacted modern-day diseases. CONCLUSIONS: Lactose maldigestion and lactose intolerance are not synonymous. Withholding dairy foods is a poor method to treat lactose intolerance. Further epidemiological work could shed light on the possible effects of microbial adaptation in lactose maldigesters. The evolutionary impact of lactase may be still ongoing.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".