Reduced peanut sensitization with maternal peanut consumption and early peanut introduction while breastfeeding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
New guidelines for peanut allergy prevention in high-risk infants recommend introducing peanut during infancy but do not address breastfeeding or maternal peanut consumption. We assessed the independent and combined association of these factors with peanut sensitization in the general population CHILD birth cohort (N = 2759 mother-child dyads). Mothers reported peanut consumption during pregnancy, timing of first infant peanut consumption, and length of breastfeeding duration. Child peanut sensitization was determined by skin prick testing at 1, 3, and 5 years. Overall, 69% of mothers regularly consumed peanuts and 36% of infants were fed peanut in the first year (20% while breastfeeding and 16% after breastfeeding cessation). Infants who were introduced to peanut early (before 1 year) after breastfeeding cessation had a 66% reduced risk of sensitization at 5 years compared to those who were not (1.9% vs. 5.8% sensitization; aOR 0.34, 95% CI 0.14-0.68). This risk was further reduced if mothers introduced peanut early while breastfeeding and regularly consumed peanut themselves (0.3% sensitization; aOR 0.07, 0.01-0.25). In longitudinal analyses, these associations were driven by a higher odds of outgrowing early sensitization and a lower odds of late-onset sensitization. There was no apparent benefit (or harm) from maternal peanut consumption without breastfeeding. Taken together, these results suggest the combination of maternal peanut consumption and breastfeeding at the time of peanut introduction during infancy may help to decrease the risk of peanut sensitization. Mechanistic and clinical intervention studies are needed to confirm and understand this "triple exposure" hypothesis.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".