Vitamin A supplementation of young children in Burkina Faso, and risk factors for non‐coverage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background High‐dose vitamin A supplements (VAS) are distributed to children 6–59 mo in Burkina Faso (BF) twice yearly. Objective To assess VAS coverage in southwestern BF and factors associated with missed coverage. Methods A cross‐sectional household survey was conducted in 106 villages in the Orodara Health District. Caregivers with children aged <27 mo were shown a photo of the VAS capsules and asked whether their child received VAS in the past 6 mo. Results 8,892 caregivers of 10,490 children <27 mo were interviewed. Among children 6–27 mo who were eligible to receive VAS, 94.3% reportedly received VAS in the previous 6 mo. Coverage was lower in urban areas (89.6% urban vs. 94.9% rural, p<0.0001), among children of younger mothers (p=0.001) and in selected communities. Among all children who received VAS, 18.7% were younger than the age minimum of 6 mo. Conclusion VAS coverage was high, but specific targeting of urban areas and children of younger mothers may further increase coverage. Focus on targeted age range will require reinforcement of staff training. Financial support from the Thrasher Research Fund and the Canadian International Development Agency.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".