MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2781860640 · doi:10.1001/jama.2017.19826

Effect of Hydrolyzed Infant Formula vs Conventional Formula on Risk of Type 1 Diabetes

2018· article· en· W2781860640 on OpenAlexafffund
Mikael Knip, Hans K. Åkerblom, Eva Al Taji, Dorothy Becker, Jan Bruining, Luís Castaño, Thomas Danne, Carine de Beaufort, Hans‐Michael Dosch, John Dupré, William D. Fraser, Neville J. Howard, Jorma Ilonen, Daniel Konrad, Olga Kordonouri, Jeffrey P. Krischer, Margaret L. Lawson, Johnny Ludvigsson, L Madácsy, Jeffrey L. Mahon, Anne Ormisson, Jerry P. Palmer, Paolo Pozzilli, Erkki Savilahti, Manuel Serrano‐Ríos, Marco Songini, Shayne Taback, Outi Vaarala, Neil H. White, Suvi Μ. Virtanen, R Wasikówa

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicInfant Nutrition and Health
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioUniversité de SherbrookeUniversity of ManitobaWestern UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchChildren's Hospital of PittsburghLundbeckfondenNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentMead Johnson Nutrition
KeywordsMedicineInfant formulaType 1 diabetesType 2 diabetesDiabetes mellitusPediatricsEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Early exposure to complex dietary proteins may increase the risk of type 1 diabetes in children with genetic disease susceptibility. There are no intact proteins in extensively hydrolyzed formulas. Objective: To test the hypothesis that weaning to an extensively hydrolyzed formula decreases the cumulative incidence of type 1 diabetes in young children. Design, Setting, and Participants: An international double-blind randomized clinical trial of 2159 infants with human leukocyte antigen-conferred disease susceptibility and a first-degree relative with type 1 diabetes recruited from May 2002 to January 2007 in 78 study centers in 15 countries; 1081 were randomized to be weaned to the extensively hydrolyzed casein formula and 1078 to a conventional formula. The follow-up of the participants ended on February 28, 2017. Interventions: The participants received either a casein hydrolysate or a conventional adapted cow's milk formula supplemented with 20% of the casein hydrolysate. The minimum duration of study formula exposure was 60 days by 6 to 8 months of age. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome was type 1 diabetes diagnosed according to World Health Organization criteria. Secondary outcomes included age at diabetes diagnosis and safety (adverse events). Results: Among 2159 newborn infants (1021 female [47.3%]) who were randomized, 1744 (80.8%) completed the trial. The participants were observed for a median of 11.5 years (quartile [Q] 1-Q3, 10.2-12.8). The absolute risk of type 1 diabetes was 8.4% among those randomized to the casein hydrolysate (n = 91) vs 7.6% among those randomized to the conventional formula (n = 82) (difference, 0.8% [95% CI, -1.6% to 3.2%]). The hazard ratio for type 1 diabetes adjusted for human leukocyte antigen risk group, duration of breastfeeding, duration of study formula consumption, sex, and region while treating study center as a random effect was 1.1 (95% CI, 0.8 to 1.5; P = .46). The median age at diagnosis of type 1 diabetes was similar in the 2 groups (6.0 years [Q1-Q3, 3.1-8.9] vs 5.8 years [Q1-Q3, 2.6-9.1]; difference, 0.2 years [95% CI, -0.9 to 1.2]). Upper respiratory infections were the most common adverse event reported (frequency, 0.48 events/year in the hydrolysate group and 0.50 events/year in the control group). Conclusions and Relevance: Among infants at risk for type 1 diabetes, weaning to a hydrolyzed formula compared with a conventional formula did not reduce the cumulative incidence of type 1 diabetes after median follow-up for 11.5 years. These findings do not support a need to revise the dietary recommendations for infants at risk for type 1 diabetes. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00179777.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.280 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations150
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMASame topicInfant Nutrition and HealthFrench-language works237,207