A double‐blind randomized controlled trial of antenatal mebendazole to reduce low birthweight in a hookworm‐endemic area of Peru
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect on birthweight of antenatal mebendazole plus iron vs. placebo plus iron in a highly hookworm-endemic area. METHODS: Double-blind, randomized controlled trial set in rural and peri-urban communities in the Peruvian Amazon region. A total of 1042 second trimester pregnant women between the ages of 18 and 44 years were recruited from April to November 2003, and followed to July 2004. Women were randomly assigned to receive either mebendazole (500 mg single dose) plus iron supplements (60 mg elemental iron daily) or placebo plus iron supplements. The primary outcome was mean infant birthweight and secondary measures included proportion of low birthweight babies and maternal anaemia. RESULTS: The prevalence of hookworm infection was 47.5%. There were no differences between intervention groups in mean birthweight (3104 g vs. 3090 g, P = 0.629), proportion of low birthweight (<2500 g; 8.1%vs. 8.7%, P = 0.755) or maternal anaemia in the third trimester [33.0% (158/479) vs. 32.3% (152/471), P = 0.815]. However, the proportion of very low birthweight (<1500 g) was significantly lower in the mebendazole group [0% (0/479) vs. 1.5% (7/471), P = 0.007]. CONCLUSIONS: This trial provides additional evidence for the use of anthelmintics, over and above iron supplementation, within antenatal care programmes in hookworm-endemic areas. Benefits of de-worming may be higher in countries not having an antenatal iron supplementation programme or where intensity of hookworm infections is higher.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Randomized trial | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Randomized trial | high |
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".