Source of human milk (mother or donor) is more important than fortifier type (human or bovine) in shaping the preterm infant microbiome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Milk fortifiers help meet the nutritional needs of preterm infants receiving their mother's own milk (MOM) or donor human milk. We conducted a randomized clinical trial (NCT03214822) in 30 very low birth weight premature neonates comparing bovine-derived human milk fortifier (BHMF) versus human-derived fortifier (H2MF). We found that fortifier type does not affect the overall microbiome, although H2MF infants were less often colonized by an unclassified member of Clostridiales Family XI. Secondary analyses show that MOM intake is strongly associated with weight gain and microbiota composition, including Bifidobacterium, Veillonella, and Propionibacterium enrichment. Finally, we show that while oxidative stress (urinary F2-isoprostanes) is not affected by fortifier type or MOM intake, fecal calprotectin is higher in H2MF infants and lower in those consuming more MOM. Overall, the source of human milk (mother versus donor) appears more important than the type of milk fortifier (human versus bovine) in shaping preterm infant gut microbiota.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".