Chapter 7. The Contributions of the ESPGHAN Committees on Nutrition to Paediatric Nutrition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The first Committee on Nutrition (CoN) was founded in 1974. Two years later nutrition (N) was added to the society's name, which then became ESPGAN. The Committee systematised compositional and quality criteria for breast milk substitutes and food for special medical purposes, the first of many examples on how recommendations and comments published by the Committees on Nutrition (CsoN) were adopted by the European Economic Community, later the European Union and also influenced the World Health Organization/Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Codex standards. A second CoN focusing on preterm infants was established in 1979 and its recommendations on nutrition of these infants were widely implemented. The third and standing CoN, established 1986, started to organise high-quality symposia at the annual meetings appreciating the need to enhance the expertise in nutritional research. From 1991 the CoN has organised Summer Schools in paediatric nutrition for young colleagues further emphasising its educational interest and more recently an annual, more specialised Nutrition Masterclass. Successively the interest of the CoN has expanded to other areas, such as highlighting dilemmas and uncertainties in the field of nutrition including the design, choice of outcomes and statistical analysis of trials in infant nutrition. The work of the CsoN have had great impact on paediatric nutrition and the committee will continue its important role by writing commentaries and systematic reviews and revising guidelines when required to inform and stimulate discussion among colleagues as well as stimulate training in paediatric nutrition by organising workshops and scientific meetings, training courses, and other approaches, and by interaction with other expert groups.
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 | 0.022 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.010 |
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".