MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2983322908 · doi:10.1080/19490976.2019.1667722

Origins of human milk microbiota: new evidence and arising questions

2019· article· en· W2983322908 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Shirin Moossavi, Meghan B. Azad

Bibliographic record

VenueGut Microbes · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreastfeeding Practices and Influences
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaChildren's Hospital Research Institute of Manitoba
FundersReseau canadien de recherche respiratoireCanadian Lung AssociationResearch ManitobaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAllerGenCanada Research ChairsHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsBiologyBreast milkBreast feedingHuman breast milkFunction (biology)BreastfeedingBacteriaImmunologyPhysiologyGeneticsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Human milk contains a diverse community of bacteria. The growing appreciation of commensal microbes and increasing availability of high-throughput technology has set the stage for a theory-driven approach to the study of milk microbiota, and translation of this knowledge to improve maternal and child health. We recently profiled the milk microbiota of healthy Canadian mothers and applied theory-driven causal modeling, finding that mode of breast milk feeding (nursing directly at the breast vs. pumping and feeding breast milk from a bottle) was significantly associated with milk microbiota composition. This observation could reflect an increased exposure to pumps and/or a decreased exposure to the infant mouth. Either way, it provides evidence for the retrograde mechanism of milk inoculation. Here, we discuss the implications of this research and related controversies, and raise new questions about the origins and function of milk bacteria.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.016
Scholarly communication0.0040.010
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations137
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGut MicrobesSame topicBreastfeeding Practices and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207