Maternal BMI is positively associated with human milk fat: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lack of robust estimates of human-milk nutrient composition and influential maternal factors, such as body composition, are barriers to informing nutrition policies and programs. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to understand the relation between maternal BMI and human-milk energy, fat, and/or total protein. METHODS: Four electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science) were searched. Outcomes assessed were human-milk energy (kcal/L), fat (g/L), and total protein (g/L) from mothers 1 to 6 mo postpartum. Studies with data on maternal BMI or weight and height that quantified human-milk energy, fat, or protein between 1 and 6 mo postpartum were eligible. Random-effects meta-regression weighted by the inverse of the study-level SE was completed for each of the 3 outcomes. The certainty of evidence for each outcome was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. RESULTS: A total of 11,373 titles and abstracts were identified, and after full-text screening, 69 articles of 66 studies were included. Meta-regression results showed a positive association between maternal BMI and human-milk fat (β: 0.56 g/L; 95% CI: 0.034, 1.1; P = 0.04; I2 = 93.7%, n = 63 datapoints). There was no significant association between maternal BMI and human-milk energy (β: 3.9 kcal/L; 95% CI: -1.6, 9.5; P = 0.16, I2 = 93.3%, n = 40 datapoints) or total protein (β: 0.13 g/L; 95% CI: -0.16, 0.41; P = 0.37, I2 = 99.1%, n = 40 datapoints). The certainty of evidence for human-milk energy was low and the certainty of evidence for fat and total protein was very low. CONCLUSIONS: Meta-regression analysis of available literature suggested an association between maternal BMI and human-milk fat between 1 and 6 mo postpartum. Future studies are needed to confirm the relation between maternal BMI; variation in human-milk energy, fat, and protein content; and the implications for child growth and development. This review is registered with International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO 2018 CRD42018098808) at https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/.
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 | 0.007 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.028 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".