North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition Position Paper
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parents and caretakers are increasingly feeding infants and young children plant-based "milk" (PBM) alternatives to cow milk (CM). The US Food and Drug Administration currently defines "milk" and related milk products by the product source and the inherent nutrients provided by bovine milk. Substitution of a milk that does not provide a similar nutritional profile to CM can be deleterious to a child's nutritional status, growth, and development. Milk's contribution to the protein intake of young children is especially important. For almond or rice milk, an 8 oz serving provides only about 2% or 8%, respectively, of the protein equivalent found in a serving of CM. Adverse effects from the misuse of certain plant-based beverages have been well-documented and include failure to gain weight, decreased stature, kwashiorkor, electrolyte disorders, kidney stones, and severe nutrient deficiencies including iron deficiency anemia, rickets, and scurvy. Such adverse nutritional outcomes are largely preventable. It is the position of the North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition (NASPGHAN) Nutrition Committee, on behalf of the society, that only appropriate commercial infant formulas be used as alternatives to human milk in the first year of life. In young children beyond the first year of life requiring a dairy-free diet, commercial formula may be a preferable alternative to cow's milk, when such formula constitutes a substantial source of otherwise absent or reduced nutrients (eg, protein, calcium, vitamin D) in the child's restricted diet. Consumer education is required to clarify that PBMs do not represent an equivalent source of such nutrients. In this position paper, we provide specific recommendations for clinical care, labelling, and needed research relative to PBMs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.059 | 0.043 |
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".