Reviewing the evidence on breast milk composition and immunological outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A large number of biologically active components have been found in human milk (HM), and in both human and animal models, studies have provided some evidence suggesting that HM composition can be altered by maternal exposures, subsequently influencing health outcomes for the breastfed child. Evidence varies from the research studies on whether breastfeeding protects the offspring from noncommunicable diseases, including those associated with immunological dysfunction. It has been hypothesized that the conflicting evidence results from HM composition variations, which contain many immune active molecules, oligosaccharides, lactoferrin, and lysozyme in differing concentrations, along with a diverse microbiome. Determining the components that influence infant health outcomes in terms of both short- and long-term sequelae is complicated by a lack of understanding of the environmental factors that modify HM constituents and thereby offspring outcomes. Variations in HM immune and microbial composition (and the differing infantile responses) may in part explain the controversies that are evidenced in studies that aim to evaluate the prevalence of allergy by prolonged and exclusive breastfeeding. HM is a "mixture" of immune active factors, oligosaccharides, and microbes, which all may influence early immunological outcomes. This comprehensive review provides an in-depth overview of existing evidence on the studied relationships between maternal exposures, HM composition, vaccine responses, and immunological outcomes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".