Why is multiple micronutrient powder ineffective at reducing anaemia among 12–24 month olds in Colombia? Evidence from a randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
=1440). In previous work, we found the intervention had no impact on haemoglobin or anaemia in this population. In this current paper, we investigate this null result and find it cannot be explained by an underpowered study design, inaccurate measurements, low adoption of and compliance with the intervention, or crowding out through dietary substitution. We conclude that our intervention was ineffective at reducing rates of childhood anaemia because MNP itself was inefficacious in our population, rather than poor implementation of or adherence to the planned intervention. Further analysis of our data and secondary data suggests that the evolution with age of childhood anaemia in Colombia, and its causes, appear different from those in settings where MNP has been effective. Firstly, rates of anaemia peak at much earlier ages and then fall rapidly. Secondly, anaemia that remains after the first year of life is relatively, and increasingly as children get older, unrelated to iron deficiency. We suggest that factors during gestation, birth, breastfeeding and early weaning may be important in explaining very high rates of anaemia in early infancy. However, the adverse effects of these factors appear to be largely mitigated by the introduction of solid foods that often include meat. This renders population wide MNP supplementation, provided after a diet of solid foods has become established, an ineffective instrument with which to target Colombia's childhood anaemia problem.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".