A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial of Maternal Postpartum Deworming to Improve Infant Weight Gain in the Peruvian Amazon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nutritional interventions targeting the critical growth and development period before two years of age can have the greatest impact on health trajectories over the life course. Compelling evidence has demonstrated that interventions investing in maternal health in the first 1000 days of life are beneficial for both mothers and their children. One such potential intervention is deworming integrated into maternal postpartum care in areas where soil-transmitted helminth (STH) infections are endemic. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: From February to August 2014, 1010 mother-infant pairs were recruited into a trial aimed at assessing the effectiveness of maternal postpartum deworming on infant and maternal health outcomes. Following delivery, mothers were randomly assigned to receive either single-dose 400 mg albendazole or placebo. Participants were followed-up at 1 and 6 months postpartum. There was no statistically significant difference in mean weight gain between infants in the experimental and control groups (mean difference: -0.02; 95% CI: -0.1, 0.08) at 6 months of age. Further, deworming had no effect on measured infant morbidity indicators. However, ad hoc analyses restricted to mothers who tested positive for STHs at baseline suggest that infants of mothers in the experimental group had greater mean length gain in cm (mean difference: 0.8; 95% CI: 0.1, 1.4) and length-for-age z-score (mean difference: 0.5; 95% CI: 0.2, 0.8) at 6 months of age. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: In a study population composed of both STH-infected and uninfected mothers, maternal postpartum deworming was insufficient to impact infant growth and morbidity indicators up to 6 months postpartum. Among STH-infected mothers, however, important improvements in infant length gain and length-for-age were observed. The benefits of maternal postpartum deworming should be further investigated in study populations having higher overall prevalences and intensities of STH infections and, in particular, where whipworm and hookworm infections are of public health concern. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01748929).
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".