Adequate Dosing of Micronutrients for Different Age Groups in the Life Cycle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many studies of micronutrient supplementation in developing countries have used single-nutrient supplements with either vitamins or minerals. However, people in these countries often suffer from multiple, rather than single, micronutrient deficiencies. The objective of this paper is to discuss the factors that go into determining the adequate dosing of vitamins and/or minerals for people of different ages. To elaborate on the adequacy of micronutrient doses in supplements, a model described by the US FNB was used, which calculates the difference between the mean observed intake for an individual and the estimated average requirement for a life stage and gender group. This model allows estimating the degree of confidence that a certain nutrient intake (from supplements and diet) is adequate. The US/Canadian DRI values have been used as the basis for these calculations, from which it can be concluded that a daily supplement of one RDA of each micronutrient is adequate to cover the personal requirements of all individuals in each respective age and gender group of the population, provided that 20 to 40% of an RDA is supplied by the diet--likely a realistic value for developing countries. DRI values vary significantly between different age groups, reflecting changing needs over a life cycle. With the objective of a supplement to be adequate and safe, the design of a one-for-all supplement covering all age groups is not realistic. Such a supplement would either underscore or surpass the required intake of some of the age groups. Additionally the dosage of certain micronutrients might exceed the upper level of intake for lower age groups. Therefore, it is suggested that three different supplements following the one RDA concept for all micronutrients be developed for research use in developing countries for the following age groups; 1 to 3 years, 4 to 13 years, and females > 14 years (excluding during pregnancy).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".