MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2604408296 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v9n7p87

Assessment of Anemia Levels in Infants and Children in High Altitude Peru

2017· article· en· W2604408296 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Roxanne Amerson, Lisa Duggan, Michelle Glatt, Kate Ramsey, Jennifer L. Baker

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIron Metabolism and Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersClemson University
KeywordsAnemiaMedicineAnthropometryBreastfeedingPediatricsAltitude (triangle)HemoglobinEffects of high altitude on humansRural areaDemographyPublic healthEnvironmental healthInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When prevalence rates of anemia exceed 40%, the World Health Organization recognizes this as a severe public health problem. In Peru, approximately 43.5% (urban) and 51.1% (rural) of children between the ages of 6 and 36 months have anemia. Currently, limited data exists regarding prevalence rates in many of the high altitude regions of Peru. The main purpose of this pilot study was to establish evidence of anemia in infants and children (7 months through 5 years of age) living in the rural, mountainous region of Ollantaytambo District. This pilot study utilized a quantitative, cross-sectional design to assess the presence of anemia in infants and children. Hemoglobin levels were collected from 160 children across 12 villages where elevations ranged from 2800 to 4100 meters above sea level. Chi Square tests compared anemia with age ranges, altitude, anthropometric measures, breastfeeding patterns, and types of communities. Adjusted hemoglobin levels established 47.5% of the 160 participants were anemic. Chi Square results indicated children aged 25-36 months and children living in communities at 3100 and 4100 meters displayed higher than expected rates of anemia. Results confirmed high rates of anemia and the need for education related to dietary factors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.366 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health ScienceSame topicIron Metabolism and DisordersFrench-language works237,207