Relative Efficacy of Micronutrient Powders versus Iron—Folic Acid Tablets in Controlling Anemia in Women in the Second Trimester of Pregnancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Iron deficiency is a major cause of anemia and the most prevalent nutrient deficiency among pregnant women in developing countries. The use of iron and folic acid supplements to treat and prevent iron-deficiency anemia has limited effectiveness, mainly due to poor adherence. Home fortification with a micronutrient powder for pregnant women may be an effective and acceptable alternative to traditional drug models. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether home fortification with micronutrient powders is at least as efficacious as iron and folic acid tablets for improving hemoglobin concentration in pregnant women. METHODS: A cluster-randomized noninferiority trial was conducted in the rural subdistrict of Kaliganj in central Bangladesh. Pregnant women (gestational age 14-22 weeks, n=478), were recruited from 42 community-based Antenatal Care Centres. Each centre was randomly allocated to receive either a micronutrient powder (containing iron,folic acid, vitamin C, and zinc) or iron and folic acid tablets. Changes in hemoglobin from baseline were compared across groups using a linear mixed-effects regression model. RESULTS: At enrolment, the overall prevalence of anemia was 45% (n = 213/478). After the intervention period, the mean hemoglobin concentrations among women receiving the micronutrient powder were not inferior to those among women receiving tablets (109.5 ± 12.9 vs. 112.0 ± 11.2 g/L; 95% CI, -0.757 to 5.716). Adherence to the micronutrient powder was lower than adherence to tablets (57.5 ± 22.5% vs. 76.0 ± 13.7%; 95% CI, -22.39 to -12.94); however, in both groups, increased adherence was positively correlated with hemoglobin concentration. CONCLUSIONS: The micronutrient powder was at least as efficacious as the iron and folic acid tablets in controlling moderate to severe anemia during pregnancy.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".