Syrup versus Drops of Iron III Hydroxide Polymaltose in the Treatment of Iron Deficiency Anemia of Infancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Iron deficiency anemia in infants is the most common micronutrient deficiency worldwide. The main cause is low iron intake in the presence of accelerated physiologic growth rate. Objective: The current study aimed at prospectively comparing the efficacy of iron III hydroxide polymaltose syrup (IPS) versus iron III hydroxide polymaltose drops (IPD) in treating iron deficiency among infants attending the hematology outpatient clinic. Our hypothesis was that IPS would be less effective possibly related to the difficulty of giving the medication. Methods: Participants diagnosed with iron deficiency anemia between 11-24 months were randomly assigned to receive either IPS or IPD for 3 months. The main outcome parameter was hemoglobin blood level, while the secondary outcome parameters were: 1) iron; 2) ferritin; 3) transferrin (i.e. total iron binding capacity); 4) mean corpuscular volume; and 5) red blood cell distribution width. Results: Out of the 104 recruited infants, 55 (52%) completed the study: 29 in the IPS group and26 inthe IPD group. There was no significant difference in the main outcome parameter at either 1 or 3 months of treatment: mean hemoglobin was 10.5 versus 10.7 g/dL within a 1 month treatment, P = 0.4; mean hemoglobin was 11.0 versus 11.1 g/dL within a 3 months of treatment, P = 0.59. Likewise, no significant differences were found with respect to the occurrence of side effects. Conclusion: Oral IPD and IPS are equally effective in treating iron deficiency anemia in infants aged 11 - 24 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".