A comparison of efficacy of a 5‐day versus 10‐day zinc therapy for acute childhood diarrhoea (ACD) on the incidence of diarrhoea in subsequent three months
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Design Randomised, double‐blind, placebo controlled community trial. Seeting Rural Bangladesh Subjects and Methods: Children (n=1622) aged 4 – 59 months with acute diarrhea, detected by daily community surveillance, were randomly allocated either to 5‐ or 10‐days of zinc treatment. Those allocated to the 5‐day course received an indistinguishable placebo for the remaining 5 days. Female field workers visited each individual child daily and supervised the administration of zinc. Result: The two groups were comparable in terms of age, sex, nutritional status and selected SES variables. Adherence to the treatment was 99% for the 1 st five days and 97% for 2 nd five days. The mean (±SD) incidence of diarrhoea over 90 days did not differ significantly between 5‐d vs 10‐d groups (1.08±1.38 vs 1.02±1.35; p=0.35; respectively). Children in both groups spent a comparable days with diarrhoea (3.1±5.6 d vs 2.9±5.6 d; p=0.64; 5‐d vs 10‐d respectively). Time to onset of the first episode during 90 d period did not differ significantly between groups. The proportion of children suffering from diarrhoea over the 90‐day period did not differ significantly between groups. The diarrhea incidence and prevalence in the two groups were also comparable. Conclusions: These findings suggest that a 5‐day zinc treatment for ACD is as efficacious as 10 days of therapy in preventing diarrhoea in the subsequent three months.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".