MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1801280500 · doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0004020

The Effect of Deworming on Growth in One-Year-Old Children Living in a Soil-Transmitted Helminth-Endemic Area of Peru: A Randomized Controlled Trial

2015· article· en· W1801280500 on OpenAlexafffund
Serene A. Joseph, Martín Casapía, Antonio Montresor, Elham Rahme, Brian J. Ward, Grace S. Marquis, Lidsky Pezo, Brittany Blouin, Mathieu Maheu‐Giroux, Theresa W. Gyorkos

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicParasites and Host Interactions
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreMcGill University
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchThrasher Research FundWorld Health Organization
KeywordsDewormingMedicinePlaceboRandomized controlled trialPopulationPediatricsPlacebo-controlled studyHelminthiasisHelminthsEnvironmental healthInternal medicineImmunologyDouble blind

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Appropriate health and nutrition interventions to prevent long-term adverse effects in children are necessary before two years of age. One such intervention may include population-based deworming, recommended as of 12 months of age by the World Health Organization in soil-transmitted helminth (STH)-endemic areas; however, the benefit of deworming has been understudied in early preschool-age children. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted to determine the effect of deworming (500 mg single-dose crushed mebendazole tablet) on growth in one-year-old children in Iquitos, Peru. Children were enrolled during their routine 12-month growth and development clinic visit and followed up at their 18 and 24-month visits. Children were randomly allocated to: Group 1: deworming at 12 months and placebo at 18 months; Group 2: placebo at 12 months and deworming at 18 months; Group 3: deworming at both 12 and 18 months; or Group 4: placebo at both 12 and 18 months (i.e. control group). The primary outcome was weight gain at the 24-month visit. An intention-to-treat approach was used. A total of 1760 children were enrolled between September 2011 and June 2012. Follow-up of 1563 children (88.8%) was completed by July 2013. STH infection was of low prevalence and predominantly light intensity in the study population. All groups gained between 1.93 and 2.05 kg on average over 12 months; the average difference in weight gain (kg) compared to placebo was: 0.05 (95% CI: -0.05, 0.17) in Group 1; -0.07 (95%CI: -0.17, 0.04) in Group 2; and 0.04 (95%CI: -0.06, 0.14) in Group 3. There was no statistically significant difference in weight gain in any of the deworming intervention groups compared to the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, with one year of follow-up, no effect of deworming on growth could be detected in this population of preschool-age children. Low baseline STH prevalence and intensity and/or access to deworming drugs outside of the trial may have diluted the potential effect of the intervention. Additional research is required to overcome these challenges and to contribute to strengthening the evidence base on deworming. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01314937).

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)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.196
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations44
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS neglected tropical diseasesSame topicParasites and Host InteractionsFrench-language works237,207