Micronutrient powder supplements combined with nutrition education marginally improve growth amongst children aged 6–23 months in rural Burkina Faso: A cluster randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Micronutrients powder (MNP) can prevent anaemia amongst children 6-23 months old. However, evidence of an effect on growth is limited and concerns about the safety of iron-containing MNP interventions limits their applicability. In a cluster randomized controlled intervention, we evaluated the effectiveness of a nutritional package including counselling and provision of MNP to improve the nutritional status of children aged 6-23 months and the effect of sustained use of MNP on morbidity in a malaria-endemic area. Child feeding practises and nutritional status were assessed through cross-sectional surveys. Biweekly morbidity surveillance and anthropometry measurements were carried out in a nested cohort study. No significant differences in the prevalence of wasting (-0.7% [-6.8, 5.3] points; p = .805), stunting (+4.6% [-2.9, 12.0] points; p = .201), or mean length-for-age z-score and weight-for-length z-score scores were found between study groups. The proportion of children with a minimum dietary diversity score and those with a minimum acceptable diet significantly increased in the intervention group compared with the control by 6.5% points (p = .043) and 5.8% points (p = .037), respectively. There were no significant differences in the risk of diarrhoea (RR: 1.68, 95% CI [0.94, 3.08]), fever (RR: 1.20 [0.82, 1.77]), and malaria (RR: 0.68 [0.37, 1.26]) between study groups. In the nested study, the rate of linear growth was higher in the intervention than in the control group by 0.013 SD/month (p = .027). In a programmatic intervention, MNP and nutrition education marginally improved child feeding practises and growth, without increasing morbidity from malaria or fever.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".