Comparison of the complementary feeding practices between mothers with twins and mothers with singletons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Several studies have been done on infant feeding practices but few have focused on twins. The aim of this study was to compare the complementary feeding practices between mothers with twins and mothers with singletons. METHODS: Mother-infant pairs (50 mother-twin pairs and 50 mother-singleton pairs) with children aged 6 to 23 months were recruited from two public health clinics and communities in Tema and Ashaiman. Information was collected on the background characteristics of the mothers. Recumbent length and weight of the children were measured. Dietary information on the infants was collected using 24 hour recall. The differences between two groups were tested using independent t-student test for continuous variables and chi-square test for categorical variables. RESULTS: The minimum dietary diversity (4+ food groups) was met by only 32% of the twins and 40% of the singletons, and 28% of the twins and 38% of the singletons met the requirement for minimum acceptable diet (minimum dietary diversity and the minimum meal frequency). Minimum meal frequency was met by 78% of the twins and 76% of the singletons. There were no significant differences between the two groups of infants. Prevalence of undernutrition was not significantly different among the two groups (twins versus singletons: underweight-26% versus 24%, stunting-20% versus 24% and wasting-14% versus 10%. CONCLUSION: Complementary feeding practices were suboptimal in both groups of mothers requiring interventions to improve infant feeding practices.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".