Oral Nutritional Supplementation in Picky Eating Children (P11-114-19)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This was a multicenter prospective randomized double-blind study with two parallel experimental groups (EXP GRPS) & an open-labeled control grp (CON). Objective was to investigate the effect of two oral nutritional supplements (ONS) along with dietary counseling (DC) vs DC alone on growth among picky eating children from India, aged > 24 m to ≤ 48 m over 90 days. Study recruited 321 children [n = 107/grp] in ages mentioned above from urban/semi-urban India with a weight-for-height between 3rd–15th centile (WHO 2006) and picky eating behaviors. Subjects in the 2 EXP GRPS received a daily supplement of one of the two similar ONS [Pediasure (PDS) & Pediasure Advance (PDS Adv)} along with DC for 90 days, whereas subjects in CON received only DC. Children in both EXP GRPS consumed min of 1 & max to 2 servings of ONS/day & there were 5 study visits (Day 1, 7, 30, 60, 90). Primary variable was the change in WHO weight-for-height centile from Day 1 to 90. Secondary variables included change in weight-for-age, height-for-age, BMI-for-age, MUAC-for-age, average intake of energy, macros & micronutrients (using 24 hr. dietary recall) and change in appetite & palatability score. Post 90 days, both EXP GRPS had significantly higher change in growth parameters like weight-for-height centile (P = 0.0086), BMI-for-age centile (P = 0.0214 & P = 0.0203 for PDS & PDS Adv respectively) & weight-for-age centile (P = 0.0054) as compared to CON. PDS group reported a significant improvement in MUAC-for-age centile (P = 0.0241) vs CON post 90-days. Significant improvement in appetite score was reported by EXP GRPS (P = 0.0067 & P = 0.0245 for PDS & PDS Adv) vs CON. Significant improvement in avg. intake of energy, protein, fat, calcium, iron, vit C & thiamine was observed for EXP GRPS vs CON for all visit days except day1. Nutrient & energy intakes at baseline were lower than RDA’s but ONS helped to fill the nutritional gaps at end of 90 days. There were no significant differences observed in the height-for-age and palatability score. ONS’s formulated with macro & micronutrients along with DC are more efficacious in catch up growth vs DC alone post 90 days supplementation. Abbott Nutrition has funded this study.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".