ReviewScience progress2018
Early life nutrition.
Review in Science progress, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Changes in short-chain fatty acids affect brain development in mice with early life antibiotic-induced dysbacteriosis.Translational pediatrics · 2024Article
- Early-Life Supplementation Enhances Gastrointestinal Immunity and Microbiota in Young Rats.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- The Metabolically Obese, Normal-Weight Phenotype in Young Rats Is Associated with Cognitive Impairment and Partially Preventable with Leptin Intake during Lactation.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- Article
- Perinatal Treatment with Leptin, but Not Celastrol, Protects from Metabolically Obese, Normal-Weight Phenotype in Rats.Nutrients · 2022Article
- Increased breastfeeding; an educational exchange program between India and Norway improving newborn health in a low- and middle-income hospital population.Journal of health, population, and nutrition · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nutritionally, the first 1,000 days of an infant's life - from conception to two years - has been identified as a highly influential period, during which lasting health can be achieved. Significant evidence links patterns of infant feeding to both short and long-term health outcomes, many of which can be prevented through nutritional modifications. Recommended globally, breastfeeding is recognised as the gold standard of infant nutrition; providing key nutrients to achieve optimal health, growth and development, and conferring immunologic protective effects against disease. Nevertheless, infant formulas are often the sole source of nutrition for many infants during the first stage of life. Producers of infant formula strive to supply high quality, healthy, safe alternatives to breast milk with a comparable balance of nutrients to human milk imitating its composition and functional performance measures. The concept of 'nutritional programming', and the theory that exposure to specific conditions, can predispose an individual's health status in later life has become an accepted dictum, and has sparked important nutritional research prospects. This review explores the impact of early life nutrition, specifically, how different feeding methods affect health outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.