Infant microbiota in colic: predictive associations with problem crying and subsequent child behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Infant colic is a condition of unknown cause which can result in carer distress and attachment difficulties. Recent studies have implicated the gut microbiota in infant colic, and certain probiotics have demonstrated possible efficacy. We aim to investigate whether the intestinal microbiota composition in infants with colic is associated with cry/fuss time at baseline, persistence of cry/fuss at 4-week follow-up, or child behavior at 2 years of age. Fecal samples from infants with colic (n = 118, 53% male) were analyzed using 16S rRNA sequencing. After examining the alpha and beta diversity of the clinical samples, we performed a differential abundance analysis of the 16S data to look for taxa that associate with baseline and future behavior, while adjusting for potential confounding variables. In addition, we used random forest classifiers to evaluate how well baseline gut microbiota can predict future crying time. Alpha diversity of the fecal microbiota was strongly influenced by birth mode, feed type, and child gender, but did not significantly associate with crying or behavioral outcomes. Several taxa within the microbiota (including Bifidobacterium, Clostridium, Lactobacillus, and Klebsiella) associate with colic severity, and the baseline microbiota composition can predict further crying at 4 weeks with up to 65% accuracy. The combination of machine learning findings with associative relationships demonstrates the potential prognostic utility of the infant fecal microbiota in predicting subsequent infant crying problems.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".