The association between early formula and reduced risk of cow’s milk allergy during the first three year of life: a Japanese cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Our recent observational study showed that regular consumption of cow's milk (CM) formula during early infancy (3-6 months old) was associated with a reduced risk of CM allergy (CMA) at 12 months old. However, the long-term association is unclear. The present study was aimed to examine how long this inverse association persists after 12 months old. METHODS: This study used the dataset of an ongoing nationwide prospective cohort, the Japan Environment and Children's Study, in which participants were registered between January 2011 and March 2014. We analyzed 65,568 children followed-up until 36 months old. The exposure factors were the consumption statuses of formula milk from 0-3, 3-6, and 6-12 months old. The primary outcome was the prevalence of CMA at 6, 12, 18, 24 and 36 months old. CMA was defined as an allergic reaction and sensitization to CM protein in an individual with no or limited intake of this protein at the evaluation time, combined with physician-diagnosed food allergy. Multivariable regression models were used to estimate the association between the periods of formula consumption and the prevalence of CMA. RESULTS: The prevalence of CMA increased with a peak of 1.51% at 18 months old and then declined to 0.79% at 36 months old. Formula milk from 3-6 months old was associated with a reduced risk of CMA throughout the first 3 years of life, although the extent of the reduction was mitigated with age (adjusted relative risk: [95% confidence interval]: 0.19 [0.10-0.34] at 12 months old, 0.23 [0.16-0.33] at 18 months old, 0.41 [0.26-0.64] at 24 months old, and 0.47 [0.26-0.80] at 36 months old). The association between early formula and CMA were observed in both children with and without eczema, but more prominent and long-lasting in the former than the latter. CONCLUSIONS: Regular exposure to CM protein during infancy was associated with a reduced prevalence of CMA during early childhood. At present, however, this observational study does not necessarily encourage formula feeding, and randomized controlled trials are warranted to confirm the findings and their significance.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".