Age of introduction of first complementary feeding for infants: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite a World Health Organization recommendation for exclusive breastfeeding of all full-term infants to 6 months of age, it is not clear what the health implications may be. Breast milk alone may not meet the nutrition needs for all growing infants, leaving them at risk for deficiencies. The objective of this study was to investigate the relationship between moderate (4 months) versus late (6 months) introduction of complementary foods to the full-term breastfed infant on iron status and growth. METHODS: An electronic search of peer-reviewed and gray-literature was conducted for randomized control trials (RCTs) and observational studies related to the timing of introduction of complementary foods. Iron status and growth data from the relevant RCTs were analyzed using RevMan 5.2.11. RESULTS: Three RCTs and one observational study met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis showed significantly higher hemoglobin levels in infants fed solids at 4 months versus those fed solids at 6 months in developing countries [mean difference [MD]: 5.0 g/L; 95% CI: 1.5, 8.5 g/L; P = 0.005]. Meta-analysis also showed higher serum ferritin levels in the 4-month group in both developed and developing countries [MD: 26.0 μg/L; 95% CI: -0.1, 52.1 μg/L, P = 0.050], [MD: 18.9 μg/L; 95% CI: 0.7, 37.1 μg/L, P = 0.040]. Short follow-up periods and small sample sizes of the included studies were the major limitations. CONCLUSIONS: RCT evidence suggests the rate of iron deficiency anemia in breastfed infants could be positively altered by introduction of solids at 4 months.
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 | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".