Efficacy of Different Doses of Multiple Micronutrient Powder on Haemoglobin Concentration in Children Aged 6–59 Months in Arusha District
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Tanzania’s Arusha District, anaemia is a significant public health problem. Recently, home fortification with multiple micronutrient powder was recommended, and daily use of one sachet has shown to be effective. However, it is a challenge for deprived families with low income to afford the daily sachet. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of different administration frequencies of micronutrient powder in reducing anaemia in children aged 6–59 months. This research used a community-based, randomized longitudinal trial design with the intent to treat anaemia. Children aged 6 to 59 months ( n=369 ) were randomly assigned to one of four intervention groups which received, on a weekly basis, either five sachets ( n=60 ), three sachets ( n=80 ), two sachets ( n=105 ), or one sachet ( n=124 ) for six months; 310 children completed the study. Using the HemoCue technique, a finger-prick blood was taken at baseline, middle, and end points of the intervention to determine haemoglobin levels. The effect of treatment on haemoglobin was assessed with analysis of covariates with Bonferroni post hoc to test group difference ( p>0.05 ) from each other. At the end, haemoglobin levels were significantly higher in participants who received three or five sachets of micronutrient powder per week compared to those who received one or two micronutrient powder sachets per week ( p<0.05 ). The prevalence of illnesses was reduced from 65% to 30.5% in all groups. This finding indicates that economically challenged families may opt for three times per week sachet administration rather than a more costly daily administration. This trial is registered with PACTR201607001693286 .
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".