MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Early childhood multiple micronutrient supplementation is associated with lower obesity prevalence in later childhood, compared with iron and vitamin A supplementation only

2010· article· en· W112407116 on OpenAlexaff
Kimberly Harding, Usha Ramakrishnan, Fabiola Mejía, Armando García Guerra, Reynaldo Martorell, Lynnette M. Neufeld

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicChild Nutrition and Water Access
Canadian institutionsNutrition International
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMicronutrientUnderweightOverweightPediatricsObesityChildhood obesityVitamin D and neurologyVitaminInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examined whether multiple micronutrient (MM) supplementation in early childhood has any lasting effect on child size in later childhood. In a randomized, double‐blind controlled trial in Mexico, infants (n=650) from a prenatal supplementation trial (MM or iron only) received either MM or iron and vitamin A (Fe‐A) supplements for 6d/wk from 3–24mo of age. Child height (ht) and weight (wt) were measured in a 2008 follow‐up visit (n=607; mean age 8.5 ± 0.9y). Using intent to treat analysis [4 group comparisons (by mother and child group) and by child group only] we found no significant differences (p>.1) in child wt, ht, ht‐for‐age or wt‐for‐age Z‐scores (HAZ or WAZ), or prevalence of stunting (HAZ<−2), underweight (WAZ<−2), thinness (BMI‐forage Z‐score (BAZ)< −2) or overweight (BAZ +1 to +1.9). However, the child MM group had significantly lower BMI, BAZ and obesity prevalence (BAZ>+2) than the child Fe‐A group (mean BMI 17.3 ± 2.7 vs. 17.8 ± 2.9 kg/m 2 , mean BAZ 0.5 ± 1.1 vs. 0.8 ± 1.2, obesity 10.2 vs. 17.3%; all p<.05). Analysis by 4 groups showed a similar, though not statistically significant trend (p=.07); children who received MM (in utero and early childhood) had the lowest obesity prevalence (9.2%) and those who received Fe only in utero and Fe‐A in childhood had the highest prevalence (18.3%). Results are consistent with our findings at 2y of age and suggest long term benefits of MM supplementation in early life. Further analysis is required to adjust for contextual factors that may have contributed to this difference after supplementation was completed. Funding: MI; Thrasher Research Fund; UNICEF; CONACYT; INSP Mexico; UC Berkeley; Emory University

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.224 · 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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicChild Nutrition and Water Access→French-language works237,207→