Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background \nThere is growing evidence suggest the link between health and feeding practice in early postnatal period, which is a critical window for development. Given the rate of type 2 diabetes is increasing and infant feeding is modifiable, understanding the association between infant feeding and subsequent diabetic risks may provide a potential effective strategy to combat the epidemic. \n \nObjective \nSystematically review the association of infant formula feeding and subsequent diabetic risks. \n \nMethods \nThe PubMed electronic database was used for literature searching. English papers assessing the association between formula feeding and major clinical markers of type 2 diabetes including diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, fasting glucose concentration, HbA1c and insulin resistance were included. \n \nResults \nData were extracted from 15 studies (four randomized controlled trials, four cross-sectional studies and seven cohort studies). All four randomized controlled trials, three cross-sectional studies and three cohort studies reported higher diabetic risks in formula-fed participants comparing to breast-fed participants. No association between infant feeding and diabetic risks was reported in the remaining five studies. All but two included studies were conducted in western countries, including the USA, Canada, the UK, France and the Netherlands. The two studies in non-western setting also found higher fasting glucose concentration in formula-fed infants. Two RCTs suggested that lower protein formula had protective effects on diabetic risks compared with higher protein formula. Only one study assessed but found no dose-response association between infant formula consumption and later diabetic risks. Among all 11 observational studies, only 6of them adjusted for maternal socioeconomic position, which was an important confounder, especially in western countries where mothers of high socioeconomic position are more likely to choose breastfeeding and breastfeed for longer, and the risk of type 2 diabetes (T2DM) was lower among those with higher SEP, therefore the published benefits of breastfeeding on preventing T2DMin such settings might be overestimated if SEP was not adjusted. \n \nConclusion \nThe current evidence suggested that in comparison with breast-fed individuals, formula-fed individuals may have greater subsequent diabetic risks, indicated by higher fasting glucose, insulin resistance or lower insulin sensitivity. However, published evidence is not strong due to the possible residual confounding from SEP. Further epidemiological studies are needed to assess the potential health impact of infant feeding in subsequent health, especially in the Asia countries where breastfeeding maybe less socially pattern and the rate of diabetics is on an increase.
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 | 0.006 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".