Review of nutrition guidelines relevant for adolescents in low‐ and middle‐income countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The economic and social well-being of any country will one day depend on its current adolescent population. To provide a good foundation for healthy adolescent development, healthy diet, along with physical activity and adequate nutrients, is necessary. Therefore, addressing the nutrition needs of adolescents could be an important step toward breaking the vicious cycle of intergenerational malnutrition, chronic diseases, and poverty. These problems could be addressed with timely recognition and appropriately delivered interventions. Our aim here is to review the existing guidelines on various aspects of nutrition interventions for adolescents and young women. We review all of the major existing guidelines on adolescent nutrition. We were able to find 18 guideline bodies that covered some form of nutritional advice in guidelines that targeted adolescents. Although the guidelines that focus specifically on this age group are limited in scope, we also extrapolated recommendations from guidelines focused on adults, women of reproductive age, and pregnant women, which were based on evidence that included populations of adolescent girls. We were able to extract and synthesize specific directives for nutrition in adolescents, macro- and micronutrient supplementation, exercise, obesity, and nutrition during preconception, pregnancy, and the postconception period.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".