MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3014635511 · doi:10.1080/19490976.2020.1736973

Human behavior, not race or geography, is the strongest predictor of microbial succession in the gut bacteriome of infants

2020· review· en· W3014635511 on OpenAlexafffund
Candice Quin, Deanna L. Gibson

Bibliographic record

VenueGut Microbes · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGut microbiota and health
Canadian institutionsKelowna General HospitalUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCrohn's and Colitis CanadaCanadian Association on Gerontology
KeywordsMicrobiomeDysbiosisBiologyContext (archaeology)DiseaseRace (biology)Human microbiomeColonizationHygiene hypothesisEcologyImmunologyGeneticsImmune systemMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Colonization of the gastrointestinal tract with microorganisms during infancy represents a critical control point for shaping life-long immune-mediated disease susceptibility. Abnormal colonization or an imbalance of microbes, termed dysbiosis, is implicated in several diseases. Consequently, recent research has aimed at understanding ways to manipulate a dysbiotic microbiome during infancy to resemble a normal, healthy microbiome. However, one of the fundamental issues in microbiome research is characterizing what a "normal" infant microbiome is based on geography, ethnicity and cultural variations. This review provides a comprehensive account of what is currently known about the infant microbiome from a global context. In general, this review shows that the influence of cultural variations in feeding practices, delivery modes and hygiene are the biggest contributors to microbial variability. Despite geography or race, all humans have similar microbial succession during infancy.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.308 · 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

Citations37
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGut MicrobesSame topicGut microbiota and healthFrench-language works237,207