Beyond Stunting: Mechanisms Linking Length to Early Child Development Among Infants in Rural India (P10-003-19)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In low and middle-income countries, early child development (ECD) is associated with stunting, but the association with length-for-age z-scores (LAZ) is understudied. The objective is to examine whether the association with ECD among infants extends beyond stunting to LAZ and whether it is altered by nurturance or inflammation. Sample: 513 infants (mean age 8.6 months, SD 2.2), 20% stunted (LAZ < -2) participated in a randomized controlled trial of micronutrient powder (MNP) in rural India. Following baseline, infants were re-evaluated at 6- and 12-months. LAZ was calculated from measured length, inflammation (C-reactive protein, CRP) from blood draw; nurturance from home observation (HOME Inventory), and ECD from Mullens Early Learning Scale (visual reception, fine/gross motor and receptive/expressive language). Linear mixed effects models were conducted, accounting for repeated measures and clustering, adjusted for child age, anemia, maternal education, household assets, and intervention. LAZ interactions with CRP and HOME scores were tested. LAZ was significantly positively associated with all ECD domains over time. HOME was positively associated with visual reception and expressive language (Table 1). HOME interactions were marginal for fine motor (P = 0.058) and significant for receptive language (P = 0.015). For HOME scores < -1 SD, LAZ was positively related to fine motor and receptive language, for HOME scores >1 SD, LAZ was not related to ECD (Figure 1). CRP was not related to ECD and CRP interaction was not significant. The positive association between LAZ and ECD illustrates vulnerability prior to the threshold of stunting. Maternal nurturance is positively associated with multiple domains of infants’ ECD and attenuates relations between LAZ and receptive language and fine motor. Inflammation (measured by CRP) is not associated with ECD. Linear growth within normal and nurturant caregiving are needed to promote ECD. Mathile Institute for the Advancement of Human Nutrition, Nutrition International, Sackler Institute for Nutrition Science of the New York Academy of Sciences.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".