ReviewFrontiers in nutrition2025
Human milk
Review in Frontiers in nutrition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Automated, targeted, NMR spectral profiling of human breast milk.Metabolomics : Official journal of the Metabolomic Society · 2026Article
- Goat and cow-milk based infant formulas contain extracellular vesicles with different miRNA and protein cargo.Current research in food science · 2026Article
- Beyond breastfeeding: a One Health Decalogue for nurturing the infant microbiota.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This review examines the differences in protein composition, digestion, and physiological effects on infants between human milk (HM) and infant formula (IF). The World Health Organization recommends exclusive breastfeeding for the first 6 months of life due to the numerous health benefits associated with it. However, when this is not possible, IF is used as an alternative. Differences between HM and IF remain, particularly in terms of protein composition and structure. Further optimization of IF is needed to better mimic HM and provide similar health benefits. Further improving IF formulation requires implementing a promising strategy, which in turn requires a thorough understanding of the mechanisms of protein digestion and amino acid (AA) absorption, as well as the metabolic and physiological effects of protein composition and structure. These are often altered by heat treatment and processing in IF. The main differences in the protein composition and structure of HM and IF are presented, including a synthesis of knowledge on the non-protein nitrogen (NPN) fraction. This fraction is too often neglected in milks, despite accounting for one fifth of the total nitrogen in HM. The influence of the protein composition and structure of HM and IF on the digestion of dietary protein and dietary AA absorption is compared, highlighting the need for data on the postprandial AA profile in infants from well-designed clinical trials. Finally, this review examines the differences in protein composition and digestion between HM and IF that lead to distinct metabolic, physiological and microbial outcomes. Future research should focus on understanding the role of partially digested proteins and the NPN fraction in shaping the infant gut microbiota and overall health.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.