MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2971909049 · doi:10.3390/nu11092064

Dietary Fatty Acids and Host–Microbial Crosstalk in Neonatal Enteric Infection

2019· review· en· W2971909049 on OpenAlexafffund
Candice Quin, Deanna L. Gibson

Bibliographic record

VenueNutrients · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicInfant Nutrition and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCrohn's and Colitis Canada
KeywordsBreast milkBreastfeedingBreast feedingFatty acidInfant formulaBiologyImmune systemDiseasePhysiologyMicrobiomeFood scienceImmunologyMedicineInternal medicineBioinformaticsBiochemistryPediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Human milk is the best nutritional choice for infants. However, in instances where breastfeeding is not possible, infant formulas are used as alternatives. While formula manufacturers attempt to mimic the performance of human breast milk, formula-fed babies consistently have higher incidences of infection from diarrheal diseases than those breastfed. Differences in disease susceptibility, progression and severity can be attributed, in part, to nutritional fatty acid differences between breast milk and formula. Despite advances in our understanding of breast milk properties, formulas still present major differences in their fatty acid composition when compared to human breast milk. In this review, we highlight the role of distinct types of dietary fatty acids in modulating host inflammation, both directly and through the microbiome-immune nexus. We present evidence that dietary fatty acids influence enteric disease susceptibility and therefore, altering the fatty acid composition in formula may be a potential strategy to improve infectious outcomes in formula-fed infants.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.304 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations12
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNutrientsSame topicInfant Nutrition and HealthFrench-language works237,207