MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366188170 · doi:10.3390/ijms24087392

Innova 2020: A Follow-Up Study of the Fecal Microbiota of Infants Using a Novel Infant Formula between 6 Months and 12 Months of Age

2023· article· en· W4366188170 on OpenAlexaff
Julio Plaza‐Díaz, Francisco Javier Ruiz‐Ojeda, Javier Morales, Rafael Martín‐Masot, 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
FieldNursing
TopicInfant Nutrition and Health
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
FundersAgencia Estatal de InvestigaciónUniversidad de Granada
KeywordsInfant formulaBreastfeedingBreast milkWeaningMedicineBreast feedingPediatricsIncidence (geometry)FecesDocosahexaenoic acidInternal medicinePolyunsaturated fatty acidBiologyFatty acid

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The World Health Organization recommends exclusive breastfeeding on demand until at least the sixth month of life. Breast milk or infant formula is the infant’s primary food source until the age of one year, followed by the gradual introduction of other foods. During weaning, the intestinal microbiota evolves to a profile close to that of the adult, and its disruption can result in an increased incidence of acute infectious diseases. We aimed to determine whether a novel starting formula (INN) provides gut microbiota compositions more similar to those of breastfed (BF) infants from 6 to 12 months of age compared to a standard formula (STD). This study included 210 infants (70 per group) who completed the intervention until they reached the age of 12 months. In the intervention period, infants were divided into three groups. Group 1 received an INN formula with a lower protein content, a casein to whey protein ratio of approximately 70/30, twice as much docosahexaenoic acid as the STD formula, a thermally inactivated postbiotic (Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis, BPL1TM HT), and twice as much arachidonic acid as the STD formula contained. The second group received the STD formula, while the third group was exclusively BF for exploratory purposes. In the course of the study, visits were conducted at 6 months and 12 months of age. Compared to the BF and STD groups, the Bacillota phylum levels in the INN group were significantly reduced after 6 months. At the end of 6 months, the alpha diversity indices of the BF and INN groups differed significantly from those of the STD group. At 12 months, the Verrucomicrobiota phylum levels in the STD group were significantly lower than those in the BF and INN groups. Based on the comparison between 6 and 12 months, the Bacteroidota phylum levels in the BF group were significantly higher than those in the INN and STD groups. When comparing the INN group with the BF and STD groups, Clostridium sensu stricto 1 was significantly higher in the INN group. The STD group had higher levels of calprotectin than the INN and BF groups at 6 months. The immunoglobulin A levels in the STD group were significantly lower than those in the INN and BF groups after 6 months. Both formulas had significantly higher levels of propionic acid than the BF group at 6 months. At 6 months, the STD group showed a higher quantification of all metabolic pathways than the BF group. The INN formula group exhibited similar behavior to the BF group, except for the superpathway of phospholipid biosynthesis (E. coli). We hypothesize that the novel INN formula may promote an intestinal microbiota that is more similar to the microbiota of an infant who consumes only human milk before the weaning period.

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 topicInfant Nutrition and HealthFrench-language works237,207