Effects of exclusive breastfeeding on infant gut microbiota: a meta-analysis across studies and populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Literature regarding the differences in gut microbiota between exclusively breastfed (EBF) and non-EBF infants is meager with large variation in methods and results. We performed a meta-analysis of seven studies (a total of 1825 stool samples from 684 infants) to investigate effects of EBF compared to non-EBF on infant gut microbiota across different populations. In the first 6 months of life, overall bacterial diversity, gut microbiota age, relative abundances of Bacteroidetes and Firmicutes and microbial-predicted pathways related to carbohydrate metabolism were consistently increased; while relative abundances of pathways related to lipid, vitamin metabolism and detoxification were decreased in non-EBF vs. EBF infants. The perturbation in microbial-predicted pathways associated with non-EBF was larger in infants delivered by C-section than delivered vaginally. Longer duration of EBF mitigated diarrhea-associated gut microbiota dysbiosis and the effects of EBF persisted after 6 months of age. These consistent findings across vastly different populations suggest that one of the mechanisms of short and long-term benefits of EBF may be alteration in gut microbes.
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 | 0.020 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.043 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".