MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3207410860 · doi:10.1093/ajcn/nqab346

Assessing the safety of bioactive ingredients in infant formula that affect the immune system: recommendations from an expert panel

2021· article· en· W3207410860 on OpenAlexaff
Emily A. Callahan, Talal A. Chatila, Richard J. Deckelbaum, Catherine J. Field, Frank R. Greer, Olle Hernell, Kirsi M. Järvinen, Ronald E. Kleinman, Joshua D. Milner, Josef Neu, Kinga K. Smolen, John B. Wallingford

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Clinical Nutrition · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreastfeeding Practices and Influences
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineImmune systemInfant formulaFood allergyAdverse effectMicrobiomePsychological interventionPediatricsAllergyImmunologyBioinformaticsBiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bioactive ingredients for infant formula have been sought to reduce disparities in health outcomes between breastfed and formula-fed infants. Traditional food safety methodologies have limited ability to assess some bioactive ingredients. It is difficult to assess the effects of nutrition on the infant immune system because of coincident developmental adaptations to birth, establishment of the microbiome and introduction to solid foods, and perinatal environmental factors. An expert panel was convened to review information on immune system development published since the 2004 Institute of Medicine report on evaluating the safety of new infant formula ingredients and to recommend measurements that demonstrate the safety of bioactive ingredients intended for that use. Panel members participated in a 2-d virtual symposium in November 2020 and in follow-up discussions throughout early 2021. Key topics included identification of immune system endpoints from nutritional intervention studies, effects of human milk feeding and human milk substances on infant health outcomes, ontologic development of the infant immune system, and microbial influences on tolerance. The panel explored how "nonnormal" conditions such as preterm birth, allergy, and genetic disorders could help define developmental immune markers for healthy term infants. With consideration of breastfed infants as a reference, ensuring proper control groups, and attention to numerous potential confounders, the panel recommended a set of standard clinical endpoints including growth, response to vaccination, infection and other adverse effects related to inflammation, and allergy and atopic diseases. It compiled a set of candidate markers to characterize stereotypical patterns of immune system development during infancy, but absence of reference ranges, variability in methods and populations, and unreliability of individual markers to predict disease prevented the panel from including many markers as safety endpoints. The panel's findings and recommendations are applicable for industry, regulatory, and academic settings, and will inform safety assessments for immunomodulatory ingredients in foods besides infant formula.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.109
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.090
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score0.575

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1090.090
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.005
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0070.005
Research integrity0.0200.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.113
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.343 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Clinical NutritionSame topicBreastfeeding Practices and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207