Cost estimations of different types of micronutrient supplements for children and pregnant women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Few studies have attempted to compare the cost of different types of micronutrient supplements that are commonly used in public health programs. The objective of this study was to assess the costs of three types of nutritional supplements with identical micronutrient content: fortified food (FF) currently provided to children and pregnant and lactating women in Mexico's Oportunidades program; syrup (SY) for children or tablets for women and; Sprinkles for children and women (SK). We estimated the cost per recommended dose of acquiring (with delivery in Mexico City) and distributing the supplements, assuming distribution by the public sector. Indirect costs to beneficiaries or families were not assessed. Sensitivity analysis was conducted on uncertain parameters. The average cost per dose of FF for children was US$0.13 and US$0.19 for women. The average cost for SY was US$0.17 and the tablets US$0.07 and average cost per dose of SK was US$0.03 (for children or women). The information obtained in this analysis is a necessary complement to impact and acceptability data to assist decision makers regarding the most appropriate and feasible micronutrient supplement for public programs. The Oportunidades program funded this research and holds the rites to the data obtained.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".