MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2804280979 · doi:10.1177/0379572118774229

Large-Scale Food Fortification and Biofortification in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Review of Programs, Trends, Challenges, and Evidence Gaps

2018· review· en· W2804280979 on OpenAlexaff
Saskia Osendarp, Homero Martı́nez, Greg Garrett, Lynnette M. Neufeld, Luz Maria De‐Regil, Marieke Vossenaar, Ian Darnton‐Hill

Bibliographic record

VenueFood and Nutrition Bulletin · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicChild Nutrition and Water Access
Canadian institutionsNutrition International
FundersBill and Melinda Gates Foundation
KeywordsBiofortificationFood fortificationBusinessScale (ratio)MicronutrientBiotechnologyPovertyEconomic growthMedicineEnvironmental healthPopulationEconomicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Food fortification and biofortification are well-established strategies to address micronutrient deficiencies in vulnerable populations. However, the effectiveness of fortification programs is not only determined by the biological efficacy of the fortified foods but also by effective and sustainable implementation, which requires continual monitoring, quality assurance and control, and corrective measures to ensure high compliance. OBJECTIVE: To provide an overview of efficacy, effectiveness, economics of food fortification and biofortification, and status of and challenges faced by large-scale food fortification programs in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). METHODS: A literature review of PubMed publications in English from 2000 to 2017, as well as gray literature, targeting nongovernmental organizations whose work focuses on this topic, complemented by national reports and a "snowball" process of citation searching. The article describes remaining technical challenges, barriers, and evidence gap and prioritizes recommendations and next steps to further accelerate progress and potential of impact. RESULTS: The review identifies and highlights essential components of successful programs. It also points out issues that determine poor program performance, including lack of adequate monitoring and enforcement and poor compliance with standards by industry. CONCLUSIONS: In the last 17 years, large-scale food fortification initiatives have been reaching increasingly larger segments of populations in LMIC. Large-scale food fortification and biofortification should be part of other nutrition-specific and nutrition-sensitive efforts to prevent and control micronutrient deficiencies. There are remaining technical and food system challenges, especially in relation to improving coverage and quality of delivery and measuring progress of national programs.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0080.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations221
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFood and Nutrition BulletinSame topicChild Nutrition and Water AccessFrench-language works237,207