Evaluation of a Partial Day Treatment Realimentation Program for Malnourished Children in the Dominican Republic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study determined the growth rates and clinical attendance patterns of malnourished children treated at an existing partial day treatment realimentation program. It was hypothesized that at least 50% of the children would achieve a minimum recommended growth rate of 5 g/kg/day and would attend at least 50% of the possible treatment days. All children consecutively admitted to a partial day treatment realimentation program on the outskirts of Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic between 2 July 2004 and 30 November 2005 were invited to participate in the study. Out of 92 caregivers, 88 (95.6%), agreed. Caregivers were interviewed and child anthropometrics were obtained at baseline and follow-up. Clinical attendance patterns were extracted from medical records. Mean rate of weight gain in the rehabilitation phase up to 4 weeks following admission was 3.9 g/kg/day (SD 4.5 g/kg/day) with only 27% of the children achieving a minimum recommended rate of > or =5.0 g/kg/day. On consecutive clinic attendance days, the mean growth rate was 4.2 (SD 8.6) g/kg/day, while on non-attendance days it was approximately 3.7 (SD 4.5) g/kg/day. Children attended 80% of the possible clinic days during the first 4 weeks of treatment. Within this time, 20% achieved the target of > or =-1 SD of the median weight for height. Caregivers reported having difficulty finding caretakers for their other children and their own illnesses as barriers to regular attendance. There was a substantial variation in growth rates of children attending the clinic with mean growth rates failing to achieve minimal standards. Though some children may have benefited from the partial day treatment program, alternative strategies should be considered at this clinic to improve resource utilization and outcomes including the use of a home recovery option and an enhanced day treatment program.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".