MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400176880 · doi:10.1186/s13006-024-00652-x

Human milk composition and infant anthropometrics: overview of a systematic review with clinical and research implications

2024· review· en· W4400176880 on OpenAlexaff
Meghan B. Azad, Meredith ’Merilee’ Brockway, Sarah M. Reyes

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Breastfeeding Journal · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicInfant Nutrition and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of ManitobaChildren's Hospital Research Institute of Manitoba
FundersBill and Melinda Gates Foundation
KeywordsAnthropometryComposition (language)PsychologyMedicineInternal medicineArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Despite global public health organizations endorsing breastfeeding or human milk (HM) as the optimal source of nutrition for infants, detailed knowledge of how HM composition influences infant growth is lacking. In this commentary we summarize and interpret the key findings of a large systematic review on HM components and child growth (N = 141 articles included). We highlight the most consistent associations, discuss study quality issues, explore socio-economic and time trends in this body of research, and identify gaps and future research directions. KEY FINDINGS OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEW: We grouped HM components into three categories: micronutrients (28 articles), macronutrients (57 articles), and bioactives (75 articles). Overall, we struggled to find consistent associations between HM components and infant growth. The majority of studies (85%) were of moderate or low-quality, with inconsistent HM collection and analysis strategies being identified as the most substantial quality concerns. Additional quality issues included failing to account for potential confounding by factors such as breastfeeding exclusivity and maternal body mass index. CONSIDERATIONS FOR FUTURE HUMAN MILK RESEARCH: Many opportunities exist for the future of HM research. Using untargeted metabolomics will expand our understanding of HM components beyond previously defined and well-understood components. Machine learning will allow researchers to investigate HM as an integrated system, rather than a collection of individual components. Future research on HM composition should incorporate evidence-based HM sampling strategies to encompass circadian variation as well as infant consumption. Additionally, researchers need to focus on developing high quality growth data using consistent growth metrics and definitions. Building multidisciplinary research teams will help to ensure that outcomes are meaningful and clinically relevant. CONCLUSION: Despite a large body of literature, there is limited quality evidence on the relationship between HM composition and infant growth. Future research should engage in more accurate collection of breastfeeding data, use standardized HM collection strategies and employ assays that are validated for HM. By systematically evaluating the existing literature and identifying gaps in existing research methods and practice, we hope to inspire standardized methods and reporting guidelines to support robust strategies for examining relationships between HM composition and child growth.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.845

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.285
GPT teacher head0.552
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Breastfeeding JournalSame topicInfant Nutrition and HealthFrench-language works237,207