MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2739219976 · doi:10.1542/peds.2016-4308

Promoting Early Child Development With Interventions in Health and Nutrition: A Systematic Review

2017· review· en· W2739219976 on OpenAlexaff
Tyler Vaivada, Michelle F Gaffey, Zulfiqar A Bhutta

Bibliographic record

VenuePEDIATRICS · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfant Development and Preterm Care
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePsychological interventionSystematic reviewPsychosocialContext (archaeology)PediatricsGerontologyEnvironmental healthMEDLINEPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: Although effective health and nutrition interventions for reducing child mortality and morbidity exist, direct evidence of effects on cognitive, motor, and psychosocial development is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To review existing evidence for health and nutrition interventions affecting direct measures of (and pathways to) early child development. DATA SOURCES: Reviews and recent overviews of interventions across the continuum of care and component studies. STUDY SELECTION: We selected systematic reviews detailing the effectiveness of health or nutrition interventions that have plausible links to child development and/or contain direct measures of cognitive, motor, and psychosocial development. DATA EXTRACTION: A team of reviewers independently extracted data and assessed their quality. RESULTS: Sixty systematic reviews contained the outcomes of interest. Various interventions reduced morbidity and improved child growth, but few had direct measures of child development. Of particular benefit were food and micronutrient supplementation for mothers to reduce the risk of small for gestational age and iodine deficiency, strategies to reduce iron deficiency anemia in infancy, and early neonatal care (appropriate resuscitation, delayed cord clamping, and Kangaroo Mother Care). Neuroprotective interventions for imminent preterm birth showed the largest effect sizes (antenatal corticosteroids for developmental delay: risk ratio 0.49, 95% confidence interval 0.24 to 1.00; magnesium sulfate for gross motor dysfunction: risk ratio 0.61, 95% confidence interval 0.44 to 0.85). LIMITATIONS: Given the focus on high-quality studies captured in leading systematic reviews, only effects reported within studies included in systematic reviews were captured. CONCLUSIONS: These findings should guide the prioritization and scale-up of interventions within critical periods of early infancy and childhood, and encourage research into their implementation at scale.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.070
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.091

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.070
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.011
Bibliometrics0.0120.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations108
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePEDIATRICSSame topicInfant Development and Preterm CareFrench-language works237,207