Concentrations of Water-Soluble Forms of Choline in Human Milk from Lactating Women in Canada and Cambodia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Choline has critical roles during periods of rapid growth and development, such as infancy. In human milk, choline is mostly present in water-soluble forms (free choline, phosphocholine, and glycerophosphocholine). It is thought that milk choline concentration is influenced by maternal choline intake, and the richest food sources for choline are of animal origin. Scarce information exists on milk choline from countries differing in animal-source food availability. In this secondary analysis of samples from previous trials, the concentrations of the water-soluble forms of choline were quantified by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry in mature milk samples collected from lactating women in Canada (n = 301) and in Cambodia (n = 67). None of the water-soluble forms of choline concentrations in milk differed between Canada and Cambodia. For all milk samples (n = 368), free choline, phosphocholine, glycerophosphocholine, and the sum of water-soluble forms of choline concentrations in milk were (mean (95%CI)) 151 (141, 160, 540 (519, 562), 411 (396, 427), and 1102 (1072, 1133) µmol/L, respectively. Theoretically, only 19% of infants would meet the current Adequate Intake (AI) for choline. Our findings suggest that the concentrations in milk of water-soluble forms of choline are similar in Canada and Cambodia, and that the concentration used to set the infant AI might be inaccurate.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".