MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156889584 · doi:10.1186/1746-4358-5-3

The effect of a controlled manipulation of maternal dietary fat intake on medium and long chain fatty acids in human breast milk in Saskatoon, Canada

2010· article· en· W2156889584 on OpenAlexaffabout
Roseann Nasser, Alison M. Stephen, Y. K. GOH, M T Clandinin

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Breastfeeding Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicFatty Acid Research and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanRegina Qu'Appelle Health Region
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFood scienceFatty acidMedicineLong chainBreast milkStearic acidCarbohydrateDietary fatLactationEndocrinologyInternal medicineChemistryBiologyPregnancyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Few studies in recent years have demonstrated the effect of maternal diet on fatty acid composition of human milk. METHODS: Fourteen free-living lactating women participated in a cross-over dietary intervention study, consuming a low fat diet (17.6% of energy as fat, 14.4% of energy as protein, 68.0% of energy as carbohydrate) and a high fat diet (40.3% of energy as fat, 14.4% of energy as protein, 45.3% of energy as carbohydrate) each for periods of 4 days, in randomised order. Each mother was her own control. Mature milk samples were collected during each period and analysed for medium and long chain fatty acids. RESULTS: The concentration of medium chain fatty acids (MCFA), was 13.6% in breast milk for the low fat diet compared to 11.4% for the high fat (p < 0.05). Arachidonic acid (C20:4n-6) levels were significantly higher in breast milk when women consumed the low fat diet. Increased dietary intake of stearic acid (C18:0) and alpha-linolenic acid (C18:3n-3) on the high fat diet significantly increased proportions of these fatty acids in breast milk (p < 0.05) in 4 days. CONCLUSIONS: Changing maternal dietary fat intake has a rapid response in terms of changes to fatty acids in breast milk.

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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.411
Threshold uncertainty score0.957

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations85
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Breastfeeding JournalSame topicFatty Acid Research and HealthFrench-language works237,207