MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2895154983 · doi:10.1136/bmjpo-2018-000314

Developmental outcomes of an individualised complementary feeding intervention for stunted children: a substudy from a larger randomised controlled trial in Guatemala

2018· article· en· W2895154983 on OpenAlex
Boris Martinez, Sayra Cardona, Patricia Rodas, Meri Lubina, Ana Margarita Ordaz González, Meghan Farley Webb, María del Pilar Grazioso, Peter Rohloff

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Paediatrics Open · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicChild Nutrition and Water Access
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversidad del ValleGrand Challenges Canada
KeywordsMedicineToddlerBayley Scales of Infant DevelopmentBlindingIntervention (counseling)Randomized controlled trialPediatricsIndigenousPhysical therapyDemographyNursingPsychologyPsychiatrySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Stunting is a common cause of early child developmental delay; Guatemala has the fourth highest rate of stunting globally. The goal of this study was to examine the impact of an intensive community health worker-led complementary feeding intervention on early child development in Guatemala. We hypothesised that the intervention would improve child development over usual care. DESIGN: A substudy from a larger individually randomised (1:1 allocation ratio), parallel-group superiority trial, with blinding of study staff collecting outcomes data. SETTING: Rural, indigenous Maya communities in Guatemala. PARTICIPANTS: 210 stunted children (height-for-age z-score ≤-2.5) aged 6-24 months, previously randomised to usual care (106) or an intensive complementary feeding intervention (104). 84 in the intervention and 91 in the usual care arm agreed to participate. INTERVENTIONS: Community health workers conducted monthly home visits for 6 months, providing usual care or individualised complementary feeding education. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes were change in z-scores for the subscales of the Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID), Third Edition. RESULTS: 100 individuals were included in the final analysis, 47 in the intervention and 53 in the usual care arm. No statistically significant differences in age-adjusted scores between the arms were observed for any subscale. However, improvements within-subjects in both arms were observed (median duration between measurements 189 days (IQR 182-189)). Mean change for subscales was 0.45 (95% CI 0.23 to 0.67) z-scores in the intervention, and 0.43 (95% CI 0.25 to 0.61) in the usual care arm. CONCLUSIONS: An intensive complementary feeding intervention did not significantly improve developmental outcomes more than usual care in stunted, indigenous Guatemalan children. However, both interventions had significant positive impacts on developmental outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02509936. STAGE: Results.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.185
Threshold uncertainty score0.948

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.323 · 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