Sensory Acceptability of Sorghum Peanut Blend (SPB) and Corn Soy Blend Plus (CSB+) By Young Children With Moderate Acute Malnutrition in Karamoja, Uganda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>Sorghum peanut blend (SPB) and corn soy blend plus (CSB+) are highly nutritious supplementary food products. SPB is formulated using local food items while CSB+ is a traditional product donated by World Food Programme to malnourished children in Uganda. The acceptability of SPB and CSB+ among children and caretakers was studied in northeastern Uganda. A 5-point hedonic scale was used to evaluate the caretakers’ sensory preferences for the two supplementary diets. A four-day central tasting, two weeks home use trial, and exit interviews were carried out. Sensory attributes of both food supplements had a rank of &gt; 4. Taste varied (<em>P &lt; 0.05</em>) with the food type. CSB+ had a higher (<em>P &lt; 0.05</em>) taste score than SPB. Other attributes were not statistically different. During central tasting, about 100% of the served porridge was consumed by the children. Feeding duration of 300 mL of porridge was 8.14 min for CSB+ and 8.24 min for SPB. Over the two weeks home use trial, 98.4% of SPB and 98.1% of CSB+ of the provided rations were consumed. The quantities of food consumed were above the recommended acceptability level of ? 75%. Reported allergic and intolerance cases were below the 10% threshold. Both food supplements were found to be acceptable to children.</p> <p><strong> </strong></p>
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".