Vitamin D supplementation in pregnancy and early infancy in relation to gut microbiota composition and <i>C. difficile</i> colonization: implications for viral respiratory infections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canada and the US, the infant diet is supplemented with vitamin D via supplement drops or formula. Pregnant and nursing mothers often take vitamin D supplements. Since little is known about the impact of this supplementation on infant gut microbiota, we undertook a study to determine the association between maternal and infant vitamin D supplementation, infant gut microbiota composition and Clostridioides difficile colonization in 1,157 mother-infant pairs of the CHILD (Canadian Healthy Infant Longitudinal Development) Cohort Study over 2009–2012. Logistic and MaAsLin regression were employed to assess associations between vitamin D supplementation, and C. difficile colonization, or other gut microbiota, respectively. Sixty-five percent of infants received a vitamin D supplement. Among all infants, infant vitamin D supplementation was associated with a lower abundance of genus Megamonas (q = 0.01) in gut microbiota. Among those exclusively breastfed, maternal prenatal supplementation was associated with lower abundance of Bilophila (q = 0.01) and of Lachnospiraceae (q = 0.02) but higher abundance of Haemophilus (q = 0.02). There were no differences in microbiota composition with vitamin D supplementation among partially and not breastfed infants. Neither infant nor maternal vitamin D supplementation were associated with C. difficile colonization, after adjusting for breastfeeding status and other factors. However, maternal consumption of vitamin-D fortified milk reduced the likelihood of C. difficile colonization in infants (adjustedOR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.19–0.82). The impact of this compositional difference on later childhood health, especially defense against viral respiratory infection, may go beyond the expected effects of vitamin D supplements and remains to be ascertained.
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".