Evidence-based interventions for improvement of maternal and child nutrition in low-income settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Maternal and child malnutrition continues to disproportionately affect low and middle-income countries, contributing to high rates of morbidity, mortality, and suboptimal development. This article reviews evidence from recent systematic reviews and studies on the effectiveness of interventions to improve nutritional status in these especially vulnerable populations. RECENT FINDINGS: Macronutrients provided to expectant mothers in the form of balanced protein energy supplements can improve fetal growth and birth outcomes, and new research suggests that lipid nutrient supplements can reduce both stunting and wasting in newborns. Maternal multiple micronutrient supplementations can also improve fetal growth, and reduce the risk of stillbirth. Nutrition education and supplementation provided to pregnant adolescents can also improve birth outcomes in this vulnerable population. New evidence is broadening our understanding of the development of gut microbiota in malnourished infants, and the possible protective role of breastmilk. SUMMARY: The reviewed evidence on nutrition interventions reinforces the importance of packaging interventions delivered within critical windows throughout the life course: before conception, during pregnancy, and throughout childhood. Emerging evidence continues to refine our understanding of which populations and contexts benefit from which intervention components, which should allow for more nuanced and tailored approaches to the implementation of nutrition interventions.
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 | 0.004 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".