The Urinary Metabolome of Healthy Newborns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The knowledge of normal metabolite values for neonates is key to establishing robust cut-off values to diagnose diseases, to predict the occurrence of new diseases, to monitor a neonate's metabolism, or to assess their general health status. For full term-newborns, many reference biochemical values are available for blood, serum, plasma and cerebrospinal fluid. However, there is a surprising lack of information about normal urine concentration values for a large number of important metabolites in neonates. In the present work, we used targeted tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS)-based metabolomic assays to identify and quantify 136 metabolites of biomedical interest in the urine from 48 healthy, full-term term neonates, collected in the first 24 h of life. In addition to this experimental study, we performed a literature review (covering the past eight years and over 500 papers) to update the references values in the Human Metabolome Database/Urine Metabolome Database (HMDB/UMDB). Notably, 86 of the experimentally measured urinary metabolites are being reported in neonates/infants for the first time and another 20 metabolites are being reported in human urine for the first time ever. Sex differences were found for 15 metabolites. The literature review allowed us to identify another 78 urinary metabolites with concentration data. As a result, reference concentration values and ranges for 378 neonatal urinary metabolites are now publicly accessible via the HMDB.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".