Canadian infants' nutrient intakes from complementary foods during the first year of life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Complementary feeding is currently recommended after six months of age, when the nutrients in breast milk alone are no longer adequate to support growth. Few studies have examined macro- and micro-nutrient intakes from complementary foods (CF) only. Our purpose was to assess the sources and nutritional contribution of CF over the first year of life. METHODS: In July 2003, a cross-sectional survey was conducted on a nationally representative sample of mothers with infants aged three to 12 months. The survey was administered evenly across all regions of the country and included a four-day dietary record to assess infants' CF intakes in household (tablespoon) measures (breast milk and formula intakes excluded). Records from 2,663 infants were analyzed for nutrient and CF food intake according to 12 categories. Mean daily intakes for infants at each month of age from CF were pooled and compared to the Dietary Reference Intakes for the respective age range. RESULTS: At three months of age, 83% of infants were already consuming infant cereals. Fruits and vegetables were among the most common foods consumed by infants at all ages, while meats were least common at all ages except 12 months. Macro- and micro-nutrient intakes from CF generally increased with age. All mean nutrient intakes, except vitamin D and iron, met CF recommendations at seven to 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: Complementary foods were introduced earlier than recommended. Although mean nutrient intakes from CF at six to 12 months appear to be adequate among Canadian infants, further attention to iron and vitamin D intakes and sources may be warranted.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".