MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4319319377 · doi:10.3390/ijms24033034

Effects of a Novel Infant Formula on the Fecal Microbiota in the First Six Months of Life: The INNOVA 2020 Study

2023· article· en· W4319319377 on OpenAlexaff
Francisco Javier Ruiz‐Ojeda, Julio Plaza‐Díaz, Javier Morales, Guillermo Álvarez-Calatayud, Eric Climent, Ángela Silva, Juan F. Martínez‐Blanch, María Enrique, Marta Tortajada, Daniel Ramón, Beatriz Tarazona Álvarez, Empar Chenoll, Ángel Gil

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Molecular Sciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreastfeeding Practices and Influences
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
FundersUniversidad de Granada
KeywordsBreastfeedingInfant formulaFormula feedingBifidobacterium animalisBreast milkMedicineGut floraBreast feedingIncidence (geometry)FecesPediatricsPhysiologyInternal medicineBifidobacteriumImmunologyBiologyFood scienceLactobacillusBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Exclusive breastfeeding is highly recommended for infants for at least the first six months of life. However, for some mothers, it may be difficult or even impossible to do so. This can lead to disturbances in the gut microbiota, which in turn may be related to a higher incidence of acute infectious diseases. Here, we aimed to evaluate whether a novel starting formula versus a standard formula provides a gut microbiota composition more similar to that of breastfed infants in the first 6 months of life. Two hundred and ten infants (70/group) were enrolled in the study and completed the intervention until 12 months of age. For the intervention period, infants were divided into three groups: Group 1 received formula 1 (INN) with a lower amount of protein, a proportion of casein to whey protein ratio of about 70/30 by increasing the content of α-lactalbumin, and with double the amount of docosahexaenoic acid/arachidonic acid than the standard formula; INN also contained a thermally inactivated postbiotic (Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis). Group 2 received the standard formula (STD) and the third group was exclusively breastfed (BF) for exploratory analysis. During the study, visits were made at 21 days, 2, 4, and 6 months of age, with ±3 days for the visit at 21 days of age, ±1 week for the visit at 2 months, and ±2 weeks for the others. Here, we reveal how consuming the INN formula promotes a similar gut microbiota composition to those infants that were breastfed in terms of richness and diversity, genera, such as Bacteroides, Bifidobacterium, Clostridium, and Lactobacillus, and calprotectin and short-chain fatty acid levels at 21 days, 2 and 6 months. Furthermore, we observed that the major bacteria metabolic pathways were more alike between the INN formula and BF groups compared to the STD formula group. Therefore, we assume that consumption of the novel INN formula might improve gut microbiota composition, promoting a healthier intestinal microbiota more similar to that of an infant who receives exclusively human milk.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Molecular SciencesSame topicBreastfeeding Practices and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207