Camel milk composition by breed, season, publication year, and country: A global systematic review, meta‐analysis, and meta‐regression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Camel milk consists of an essential macro/micronutrient for human nutrition in the arid and urban regions. This review study aimed to use meta‐analysis statistical techniques for assessment and correction of publication bias, exploration of heterogeneity between studies, and detailed assessment of the effect of a comprehensive set of moderators including breed, season, country, year of publication, and the interaction between composition elements. This could provide a single synthesis of the camel milk composition to warrant strong generalizability of results, examine variability between available studies, and analyze differences in camel milk composition among different exposures. Such a finding will aid future researchers and health professionals in acquiring a more precise understanding of camel milk composition and drawing more clinical implications. Six searching databases and bibliographic were used including PubMed/MEDLINE, ScienceDirect, Springer, EBSCOhost, Scopus, and Web of Science from January 1980 to December 2021. The DerSimonian–Laird estimator was used to create the current random‐effects meta‐analysis. This systematic review and meta‐analysis included a total of 7298 camel milk samples from 23 countries. This review comprises 79 studies published in the English language on or after 1980, including a subgroup of 117 analyses consisting of seasons, sub‐breeds, and countries. The contents of macro/micronutrients in camel milk were identified as follows: protein, 3.17%; fat, 3.47%; lactose, 4.28%; ash, 0.78%; and total solids, 11.31%; calcium, 112.93 mg/100 g; iron, 0.45 mg/100 g; potassium, 116.13 mg/100 g; magnesium, 9.65 mg/100 g; sodium, 53.10 mg/100 g; zinc, 1.68 mg/100 g; vitamin C, 5.38 mg/100 g; vitamin A, 0.36 mg/100 g; vitamin B 1 ,0.05 mg/100 g; vitamin B 2 , 0.13 mg/100 g; vitamin B 3 , 0.51 mg/100 g; vitamin B 6 , 0.09 mg/100 g; and vitamin B 12 , 0.0039 mg/100 g. Our meta‐regression analysis found that fat and total solids were statistically significant moderators of protein; moreover, total solids content is a statistically significant moderator of fat. Discrepancies observed in camel milk profiles are dependent upon several factors, including number of included studies, number of samples, different analytical techniques, feeding patterns, camel's breeds, geographical locations, and seasonal variations.
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 | 0.021 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.049 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".