MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4411427889 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2024-096957

Cohort profile: Mother and Infant Metabolome and Microbiome (MIMM) study, a prospective cohort study of mothers and infants in Boston, Massachusetts

2025· article· en· W4411427889 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Chloe Andrews, Saumya Vodapally, Laurie Foster, Isabella Lawandy, Denisse Moncada, Maria Laura Mourão, Brij Bhushan, Paige K. Berger, Raina N. Fichorova, Carmen Monthé‐Drèze, Steven D. Freedman, Asimenia Angelidou, Camilia R. Martin, Sarbattama Sen

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreastfeeding Practices and Influences
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDNA GenotekMassachusetts Life Sciences Center
KeywordsMedicineBreastfeedingCohortProspective cohort studyCohort studyPediatricsCaesarean deliveryPregnancyNeonatal intensive care unitCaesarean sectionObstetricsFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose Breastfeeding is beneficial to the health of both the mother and infant. Despite recommendations to breastfeed by organisations including the WHO and the American Academy of Pediatrics, rates of breastfeeding remain below public health goals. The Mother and Infant Metabolome and Microbiome (MIMM) study is a prospective cohort study of healthy mother-term infant dyads designed to comprehensively assess the perinatal, maternal, neonatal and infant factors that are associated with breastfeeding outcomes and human milk composition. Participants MIMM participants were recruited from two medical centres in Boston, Massachusetts, from 2019 to 2023 and are followed for 2 years. Dyads were included if the mother delivered a singleton infant at ≥37 weeks’ gestation, was discharged home <72 hours after vaginal delivery or <6 days after caesarean delivery, spoke English, planned to breastfeed (either exclusively or with formula supplementation) and was willing and able to conduct follow-up through 2 years. Dyads were excluded from the study if the infant was admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit for longer than 72 hours. A total of 156 dyads were enroled in the study; however, eight participants dropped out prior to hospital discharge and will be excluded from all analyses (ie, no data was collected), resulting in a final cohort sample size of 148 mother-infant dyads. Approximately 62% of participants were White, 20% were Black or African American, 11% were Asian and 7% were more than one or unknown race. The cohort was highly educated, with 87% of participants having at least a college degree. Median maternal pre-pregnancy body mass index was 24.8 kg/m 2 and infant gestational age was 39.3 weeks. Approximately 43% of infants were born via caesarean delivery, and 45.5% were female. Findings to date MIMM study procedures include longitudinal (1) collections of maternal blood, vaginal swab, stool and milk and infant blood and stool samples and (2) assessments of breastfeeding status, child neurodevelopment and growth and maternal health at birth, 6 weeks and 6, 12, 18 and 24 months. Data collection through 18 months is complete. The overall objective of the MIMM study is to identify potential targets to improve breastfeeding outcomes, human milk composition and ultimately, maternal and child health. Preliminary analyses, reported in conference presentations (with ongoing analyses and results manuscripts pending), have found that (1) mothers with higher levels of stress were less likely to be exclusively breastfeeding their infants at 6 weeks; (2) higher breastfeeding intensity was associated with greater postpartum weight loss at 6 weeks; (3) feeding type was a more relevant predictor of feeding frequency and volume compared with feeding mode; (4) infants who received exclusive human milk had higher food enjoyment compared with those who received any formula; and (5) infants of mothers with obesity had higher average feeding volume per feed. Future plans Data collection for the final 24-month visit is expected to be completed by August 2025. We expect that all sample assays will be completed by December 2025. Findings will continue to be submitted for presentation at scientific conferences, and we expect to publish the first findings from this cohort in manuscript format in 2025.

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)0.002
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 score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.151

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.348 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicBreastfeeding Practices and Influences→French-language works237,207→