MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Assessment of Evidence About Common Infant Symptoms and Cow’s Milk Allergy

2020· review· en· W3015735885 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Munblit, Michael R. Perkin, Debra J. Palmer, Robert Boyle

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Pediatrics · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFood Allergy and Anaphylaxis Research
Canadian institutionsPopulation Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOverdiagnosisBreastfeedingCow's milk allergyCryingMilk allergyPediatricsGuidelineFood allergyAllergyPsychiatryImmunologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Sales of specialized formula for managing cow's milk allergy (CMA) have increased, triggering concern that attribution of common infant symptoms, such as crying, vomiting, and rashes, to CMA may be leading to overdiagnosis, which could undermine breastfeeding. Objective: To understand whether CMA guideline recommendations might promote CMA overdiagnosis or undermine breastfeeding. Evidence Review: We reviewed recommendations made in CMA guidelines and critically appraised 2 key recommendations. First, we reviewed relevant literature summarizing whether maternal or infant dietary exclusion of cow's milk is effective for managing common infant symptoms. Second, we reviewed published data on breastmilk composition and thresholds of reactivity in CMA to estimate the probability that cow's milk protein in human breastmilk can trigger symptoms in infants with CMA. We also documented the level of commercial involvement in CMA guidelines. Findings: We reviewed 9 CMA guidelines published from 2012 to 2019. Seven suggest considering CMA as a cause of common infant symptoms. Seven recommend strict maternal cow's milk exclusion for managing common symptoms in breastfed infants. We found CMA proven by food challenge affects approximately 1% of infants, while troublesome crying, vomiting, or rashes are each reported in 15% to 20% of infants. We found clinical trials do not provide consistent support for using maternal or infant cow's milk exclusion to manage common symptoms in infants without proven CMA. We estimated that for more than 99% infants with proven CMA, the breastmilk of a cow's milk-consuming woman contains insufficient milk allergen to trigger an allergic reaction. Three CMA guidelines were directly supported by formula manufacturers or marketing consultants, and 81% of all guideline authors reported a conflict of interest with formula manufacturers. Conclusions and Relevance: Recommendations to manage common infant symptoms as CMA are not evidence based, especially in breastfed infants who are not directly consuming cow's milk. Such recommendations may cause harm by undermining confidence in breastfeeding.

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)0.036
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.233
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.190

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0360.233
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.008
Bibliometrics0.0180.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations109
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA PediatricsSame topicFood Allergy and Anaphylaxis ResearchFrench-language works237,207