Mexican infants primarily breastfed from 0–6 months are protected against gastrointestinal infections but may have low iron stores at six months.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the benefits of breast‐feeding are beyond doubt, ensuring adequate iron status of breast‐fed infants is a concern. We undertook a prospective study in Guadalajara, Mexico to examine the relationship between infant feeding and growth, cumulative incidence of infection, and iron stores. We followed for six months 158 healthy‐term infants born to low‐income women. Monthly, weight and length were measured, and mothers reported symptoms of infant illness and feeding method. Iron stores were assessed at six months utilizing serum ferritin. Infants were grouped according to feeding mode during 0–4 months, with 38% of infants primarily breastfed (BF), 27% partially breastfed (PBF), and 35% formula fed (FF). No differences were observed among feeding groups in attained weight and length or cumulative incidence of upper respiratory infections. At six months, BF infants had 1.9 times lower and PBF infants had 1.4 times lower ferritin than did FF infants. During 0–6 months, BF infants were less likely to have a gastrointestinal infection (GI) (20%) versus not BF infants (PBF, FF combined) (34%, p<.05). Thus, BF infants had protection against GI during early infancy, but reduced iron stores at six months of age. BF infants may be at increased risk for iron deficiency in the second half of infancy, a common problem in Mexico, if iron‐rich complementary foods are not used beginning around six months. Study funded by University of Alberta International, Dr. Willows, and Juan I Menchaca Hospital.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".