Overview
This source page is a mechanical bulk-ingest record for a PDF in the methylmercury infant-formula research pull. It preserves source-level identity, routeable product/analyte scope, and exact extracted numeric lines for later human or fresh-context audit. It does not derive HMTc thresholds, percentiles, or brand-by-brand comparisons.
Key numbers
The worker extracted the full PDF text with layout preservation twice and compared extraction hashes before commit. The following lines are copied from numeric/table-bearing regions of the PDF and retain the source units and wording where legible:
- J.E. Miller1, L. Milne1, J. Duncan1 and J.M. Wallace1
- ance of them(1). The maternal diet provides infants’ first experiences of flavours in utero(1) providing an opportunity to encourage
- Women in late-pregnancy (n = 55) ate soups with (treatment) or without (control) bitter vegetables for 24-days in addition to their
- usual diet. Habitual F&V consumption was assessed by questionnaire at ∼30 weeks gestation which yielded F&V and bitter vegetable
- (max = 300) frequency scores, and average portions per day consumed (portions/day). Milk-feeding scores for six-months postnatal
- were calculated from milk diaries (0 = exclusively formula-fed to 6 = exclusively breastfed). Infant taste-tests were videoed by the
- mothers in their own homes at the outset of weaning (mean 24.7 weeks). Potato puree was offered first until they were competent
- combined) using The Feeding Infants: Behaviour and Facial Expression Coding System(2) (FIBFECS) – a validated method of asses-
- sing infants’ wanting and liking of food. Mothers’ perception of liking was recorded on a Likert-scale (1 = extremely disliked to 9 =
- and bitter vegetable frequency score. For spinach, higher bitter vegetable frequency scores predicted more positive behaviours (β1.2 P
- = 0.025), fewer negative behaviours (β-0.4 P = 0.013) and expressions (β-0.9 P = 0.002), lower overall disliking scores (β-0.05 P < 0.001)
- and higher liking as perceived by the mothers (β0.1 P < 0.001). Treatment group similarly predicted positive (β45.2 P = 0.004) and
- negative (β-13 P = 0.008) behaviours, overall disliking (β-1.1 P = 0.001), and mothers’ liking scores (β4.3 P < 0.001). Taking habitual
- tive behaviours (β-1.7 P = 0.014) and liking as perceived by the mothers (β-0.1 P = 0.004), and lower scores for negative behaviours
- (β0.4 P = 0.037), expressions (β0.8 P = 0.025) and overall disliking (β0.05 P < 0.001). Treatment group predicted higher positive behav-
-
- Nekitsing C, Madrelle J, Barends C, et al. (2016) Food Qual Prefer 48, 228–237.
- https://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665121002871 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Methods (brief)
- Analytical method details were not mechanically resolved from extracted text.
Implications
This page makes the source discoverable for category-level evidence routing. Values remain source-native and should be used only with the stated matrix, species, basis, geography, and censoring context from the paper. The page does not convert total mercury to methylmercury or use total arsenic as inorganic arsenic.
Wiki pages this source may touch
Verification notes
- Identity check: DOI, raw handle, candidate cite-key, and SHA-256 were compared against existing
wiki/sources/pages before creation. - Full-PDF read:
pdftotext -layoutwas run on the full PDF twice; extracted text hashes matched before the page was written. - Numeric verification: numeric/table-bearing lines were selected mechanically from the verified extraction and preserved without unit conversion or rounding.
- Brand firewall: the worker skips PDFs when extracted numeric lines appear brand/manufacturer-sensitive; this page contains category-level or species-level evidence only.
- HMTc firewall: no threshold, percentile, pass/fail, clean/dirty, or certification math is stated.
Update history
The five most recent substantive edits to this page, classified major (evidence or structure moved), correction (a published value or statement was wrong and has been fixed), or minor (narrative rewritten without changing the underlying evidence). Each description is derived from what the edit did to this page; the linked commit is the authoritative record, routine regeneration passes are excluded, and the full version history lives in git. When DOI minting comes online (see schema docs), each entry below will also link to a version-pinned DataCite DOI.