MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1502630641 · doi:10.1159/000337447

Issues and Controversies with Vitamin A in Childhood

2012· article· en· W1502630641 on OpenAlexaff
María Teresa Murguía Peniche

Bibliographic record

VenueNestlé Nutrition Institute Workshop series · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicChild Nutrition and Water Access
Canadian institutionsChild, Adolescent and Family Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreastfeedingVitamin A deficiencyMeaslesVitaminPediatricsDiarrheaIntensive care medicineImmunologyInternal medicineVaccinationRetinol

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vitamin A deficiency is common in the developing world. Vitamin A supplementation (VAS) has been used to prevent or treat vitamin A deficiency and to decrease mortality and morbidity in children. However, there are still controversial issues in relation to the role of universal VAS in different populations. Thus, studies that look at mortality outcomes reveal that VAS decreases mortality in children >6 months of age; however, there is still controversy on the extent to which reduction in morbidity from diarrhea and respiratory infection, other than measles, decreases mortality. Studies in infants 1-5 months old show no protective effect of VAS on mortality; whether this is secondary to environmental influences (breastfeeding), or interactions with DTP vaccine, needs to be further investigated. Studies with VAS in newborns have resulted in contrasting results in countries in Africa and Asia; trials are underway to better understand this. VAS does not have a universal protective effect on lower respiratory tract infection in children; some studies reveal an increase in respiratory morbidity associated with VAS, especially in well-nourished children; in contrast, VAS may confer some protection to malnourished children. The interaction of VAS with different vaccines is under current debate; some discussions are presented.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.485
Threshold uncertainty score0.871

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNestlé Nutrition Institute Workshop seriesSame topicChild Nutrition and Water AccessFrench-language works237,207