The impact of thermal pasteurization on viral load and detectable live viruses in human milk and other matrices: a rapid review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Holder pasteurization (62.5 °C, 30 min) of human milk is thought to reduce the risk of transmitting viruses to an infant. Some viruses may be secreted into milk – others may be contaminants. The effect of thermal pasteurization on viruses in human milk has yet to be rigorously reviewed. The objective of this study is to characterize the effect of common pasteurization techniques on viruses in human milk and non-human milk matrices. Databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science) were searched from inception to April 20th, 2020, for primary research articles assessing the impact of pasteurization on viral load or detection of live virus. Reviews were excluded, as were studies lacking quantitative measurements or those assessing pasteurization as a component of a larger process. Overall, of 65 131 reports identified, 109 studies were included. Pasteurization of human milk at a minimum temperature of 56−60 °C is effective at reducing detectable live virus. In cell culture media or plasma, coronaviruses (e.g., SARS-CoV, SARS-CoV-2, MERS-CoV) are highly susceptible to heating at ≥56 °C. Although pasteurization parameters and matrices reported vary, all viruses studied, except parvoviruses, were susceptible to thermal killing. Future research important for the study of novel viruses should standardize pasteurization protocols and should test inactivation in human milk. Novelty In all matrices, including human milk, pasteurization at 62.5 °C was generally sufficient to reduce surviving viral load by several logs or to below the limit of detection. Holder pasteurization (62.5 °C, 30 min) of human milk should be sufficient to inactivate nonheat resistant viruses, including coronaviruses, if present.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".