You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Randomized controlled trial on the impact of early-life intervention with bifidobacteria on the healthy infant fecal microbiota and metabolome
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3945/ajcn.117.157529 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Monika Bazanella, Tanja V Maier, Thomas Clavel, Ilias Lagkouvardos, Marianna Lucio, Maria X Maldonado-Gòmez, Chloe Autran, Jens Walter, Lars Bode, Philippe Schmitt-Kopplin, Dirk Haller |
| Abstract |
Background: Early-life colonization of the intestinal tract is a dynamic process influenced by numerous factors. The impact of probiotic-supplemented infant formula on the composition and function of the infant gut microbiota is not well defined.Objective: We sought to determine the effects of a bifidobacteria-containing formula on the healthy human intestinal microbiome during the first year of life.Design: A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study of newborn infants assigned to a standard whey-based formula containing a total of 10(8) colony-forming units (CFU)/g of Bifidobacterium bifidum, Bifidobacterium breve, Bifidobacterium longum, B. longum subspecies infantis (intervention), or to a control formula without bifidobacteria (placebo). Breastfed controls were included. Diversity and composition of fecal microbiota were determined by 16S ribosomal RNA gene amplicon sequencing, and metabolite profiles were analyzed by ultrahigh-performance liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry over a period of 2 y.Results: Infants (n = 106) were randomly assigned to either the interventional (n = 48) or placebo (n = 49) group; 9 infants were exclusively breastfed throughout the entire intervention period of 12 mo. Infants exposed to bifidobacteria-supplemented formula showed decreased occurrence of Bacteroides and Blautia spp. associated with changes in lipids and unknown metabolites at month 1. Microbiota and metabolite profiles of intervention and placebo groups converged during the study period, and long-term colonization (24 mo) of the supplemented Bifidobacterium strains was not detected. Significant differences in microbiota and metabolites were detected between infants fed breast milk and those fed formula (P < 0.005) and between infants birthed vaginally and those birthed by cesarean delivery (P < 0.005). No significant differences were observed between infant feeding groups regarding growth, antibiotic uptake, or other health variables (P > 0.05).Conclusion: The supplementation of bifidobacteria to infant diet can modulate the occurrence of specific bacteria and metabolites during early life with no detectable long-term effects. This trial was registered at germanctr.de as DRKS00003660. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 18% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 14% |
| Belgium | 1 | 5% |
| Ecuador | 1 | 5% |
| Australia | 1 | 5% |
| Ireland | 1 | 5% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 5% |
| Denmark | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 9 | 41% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 10 | 45% |
| Members of the public | 8 | 36% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 18% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 411 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 411 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 56 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 50 | 12% |
| Researcher | 49 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 49 | 12% |
| Other | 19 | 5% |
| Other | 76 | 18% |
| Unknown | 112 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 60 | 15% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 52 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 41 | 10% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 37 | 9% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 27 | 7% |
| Other | 64 | 16% |
| Unknown | 130 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 51. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 September 2022.
All research outputs
#830,531
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
#1,702
of 12,615 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,097
of 323,170 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
#18
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,615 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 323,170 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.