The effect of deworming on early childhood development in Peru: A randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a knowledge gap on the effect of early childhood deworming on development in low- and middle-income countries. This evidence is important in the critical window of growth and development before two years of age. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial of the benefit, and optimal timing and frequency, of deworming on development was conducted in Iquitos, Peru. Children were enrolled during routine 12-month growth and development visits and randomly allocated to: (1) deworming at the 12-month visit and placebo at the 18-month visit; (2) placebo at the 12-month visit and deworming at the 18-month visit; (3) deworming at the 12 and 18-month visits; or (4) placebo at the 12 and 18-month visits. The Bayley Scales of Infant Development III was used to assess cognitive, language and motor skills at the 12 and 24-month visits. One-way ANOVA analyses used an intention-to-treat approach. RESULTS: =1563). Raw scores on all subtests increased over 12 months; however, cognitive and expressive language scaled scores decreased. There was no statistically significant benefit of deworming, or effect of timing or frequency, on any of the development scores. Baseline height and weight and maternal education were associated with development scores at 24 months. CONCLUSIONS: After 12 months of follow-up, an overall benefit of deworming on cognition, language or fine motor development was not detected. Additional integrated child and maternal interventions should be considered to prevent developmental deficits in this critical period.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".