Dietary exposures and allergy prevention in high-risk infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Infants at high risk for developing a food allergy have either an atopic condition (such as eczema) themselves or an immediate family member with such a condition. Breastfeeding should be promoted and supported regardless of issues pertaining to food allergy prevention, but for infants whose mothers cannot or choose not to breastfeed, using a specific formula (i.e., hydrolyzed formula) is not recommended to prevent food allergies. When cow's milk protein formula has been introduced in an infant's diet, make sure that regular ingestion (as little as 10 mL daily) is maintained to prevent loss of tolerance. For high-risk infants, there is compelling evidence that introducing allergenic foods early-at around 6 months, but not before 4 months of age-can prevent common food allergies, and allergies to peanut and egg in particular. Once an allergenic food has been introduced, regular ingestion (e.g., a few times a week) is important to maintain tolerance. Common allergenic foods can be introduced without pausing for days between new foods, and the risk for a severe reaction at first exposure in infancy is extremely low. Pre-emptive in-office screening before introducing allergenic foods is not recommended. No recommendations can be made at this time about the role of maternal dietary modification during pregnancy or lactation, or about supplementing with vitamin D, omega 3, or pre- or probiotics as means to prevent food allergy.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".