MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2886692117 · doi:10.1186/s13643-018-0788-4

A methodological approach to identify the most reliable human milk collection method for compositional analysis: a systematic review protocol

2018· review· en· W2886692117 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gabriela E. Leghi, Philippa Middleton, Beverly S. Mühlhäusler

Bibliographic record

VenueSystematic Reviews · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicInfant Nutrition and Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Adelaide
KeywordsMedicineBreastfeedingCochrane LibraryProtocol (science)MEDLINEObservational studyScopusSystematic reviewSample size determinationBreast milkClinical study designMeta-analysisAlternative medicinePathologyClinical trialStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Breast milk composition has been reported to vary significantly between individual women and between different populations. However, the composition is also known to vary within the same woman between different days, within the same day, and even across the same feed. Therefore, it is unclear to what extent variations in composition are due to variations in sampling methodology between studies. The purpose of this systematic review is to compare the results obtained for breast milk macronutrient composition between studies utilizing different sampling methodologies and to use this as a basis to determine the most robust and consistent sampling approach as an alternative to full expression (gold standard). METHODS: The EMBASE, MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global databases will be searched for relevant articles. Observational studies, including cross-sectional, comparative cohort, and longitudinal cohort studies which involve lactating women who are breastfeeding (exclusively or not) or expressing (manually or using a breast pump) at any lactation stage will be included. This review will compare different methods of breast milk collection used in research studies which report macronutrient levels (protein, fat, lactose). Two review authors will independently screen titles and abstracts of studies identified by the literature search to determine articles for the full text screening. Quality assessment of included articles will be conducted independently by two review authors using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. DISCUSSION: It is important to identify the most reliable and practical method of human milk collection which best represents the average composition of the milk that is being consumed by the infant. This systematic review will be critical for ensuring that we determine a robust and consistent sampling approach to use in future studies of evaluating breast milk composition in a larger population. Identifying a recommended standard collection protocol will also provide more opportunities for sharing and combining data from different research groups, thus enhancing replicability and knowledge in the field. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42017072563.

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)0.219
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.249
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.781
Threshold uncertainty score0.963

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2190.249
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0080.008
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0240.022
Bibliometrics0.0310.023
Science and technology studies0.0060.008
Scholarly communication0.0110.011
Open science0.0080.008
Research integrity0.0120.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0500.010

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.

Opus teacher head0.396
GPT teacher head0.562
Teacher spread0.166 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
DomainMethods
GenreProtocol

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

Citations20
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSystematic ReviewsSame topicInfant Nutrition and HealthFrench-language works237,207