Effects of breast-feeding compared with formula-feeding on preterm infant body composition: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the effect of breast-feeding and formula-feeding on body composition of preterm infants. We searched the literature using PubMed, Cochrane Central Library Issue, Ovid (Medline), Embase and other resources such as Google Scholar, electronic databases and bibliographies of relevant articles; two reviewers collected and extracted data independently. All the authors assessed risk of bias independently using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). A fixed-effects meta-analysis was undertaken with RevMan 5 software (The Cochrane Collaboration) using the inverse variance method (P≥0·05; χ 2 test). In contrast, a random-effects meta-analysis was carried out. Altogether, 630 articles were identified using search strategy, and the references within retrieved articles were also assessed. A total of six studies were included in this systematic review. In formula-fed infants, fat mass was higher at term (mean difference 0·24 (95 % CI 0·17, 0·31) kg), fat-free mass was higher at 36 weeks of gestational (mean difference 0·12 (95 % CI 0·04, 0·21) kg) and the percentage of fat mass was higher at 36 weeks of gestation (mean difference 3·70 (95 % CI 1·81, 5·59) kg) compared with breast-fed infants. Compared with breast-feeding, formula-feeding is associated with altered body composition from birth to term in preterm infants. The effects of formula-feeding on preterm infant body composition from term to 12-month corrected age are inconclusive in our study. Well-designed studies are required in the future to explore the effects of formula-feeding compared with breast-feeding.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".