Vitamin B12 concentrations vary greatly in milk donated to a large provincial milk bank, and are influenced by supplementation and parity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Feeding parent's milk with supplemental donor milk (DM) is the optimal way to feed very low birth weight (VLBW) infants instead of formula; however, suboptimal neurodevelopment persists. This is believed due, in part, to suboptimal nutrition. Given vitamin B12's role in neurodevelopment and increased adoption of plant-based diets among females of child-bearing age, we aimed to determine the adequacy of vitamin B12 in DM (n = 380 donors) and associated donor characteristics. METHODS: Vitamin B12 was measured in consecutive raw DM donations received at the milk bank from March 2020-2021 using a validated competitive chemiluminescent enzyme immunoassay (IMMULITE 2000, Siemens). Donor characteristics were obtained from screening records and associations with milk vitamin B12 concentrations explored using a generalized additive model. RESULTS: Donors were 32 ± 4 years old (mean ± SD), and DM was expressed 98 ± 85 days postpartum. Vitamin B12 concentrations in DM had a median (25th, 75th percentile) of 232 (149, 373) pmol/L; 64 % had concentrations <310 pmol/L (common cut-off for inadequacy in healthy term-born infants). In a multivariable analysis, donors consuming a vitamin B12-containing supplement had higher DM vitamin B12 (β ± SE: 80.3 ± 25.4 pmol/L; p = 0.020) compared to those not taking a supplement. Primiparous donors had higher DM vitamin B12 than multiparous donors (36.7 ± 18.2 pmol/L greater; p = 0.044). No associations were observed for other donor characteristics. CONCLUSION: Milk donated to a large human milk bank showed evidence of suboptimal vitamin B12; levels were associated with both donor vitamin B12-containing supplement use and parity. Further research as to whether and when milk bank donors are recommended to consume a supplement and the benefits and risks of routine vitamin B12 supplementation of DM-fed infants is warranted.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".