Pre‐pregnancy iodized salt improved children's cognitive development in randomized trial in Ethiopia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The overarching Ethiopia project examined the effects of early market introduction of iodized salt on the growth and mental development of young children. Sixty districts were randomly assigned to intervention (early market access to iodized salt) or control (later access through market forces), and one community per district was randomly chosen as the sampling unit. For this project, 22 of the districts were included. The participants were 1,220 pregnant women who conceived after the intervention began. When their children were 2 to 13 months old, field staff collected information on household sociodemographic status and iodized salt intake, child stimulation, maternal depression symptoms, children's diet, anthropometry, urinary iodine concentration (UIC), hemoglobin, and mental development scores (Bayley III scales). Fewer mothers prepartum (28% vs. 41%, p < .05) and their children (13% vs. 20%, p < .05) were iodine deficient (UIC <50 μg/L) in the intervention compared with the control group. The intervention children had higher cognitive scores (33.3 ± 0.3 vs. 32.6 ± 0.3; Δ = 0.6; 95% CI [0.0, 1.3]; d = 0.17; p = .01; 4 IQ points) than their controls. The other Bayley subscale scores did not differ from control children. The intervention group had a higher child stimulation (22.7 ± 0.2 vs. 22.1 ± 0.2; Δ = 0.5; 95% CI [0.02, 0.89]; d = 0.17; p = .01) but not growth indicators (weight-for-age z score, length-for-age z score, and weight-for-length z score: -1.1 ± 0.1 vs. -1.1 ± 0.1, -1.7 ± 0.1 vs. -1.7 ± 0.1; -0.2 ± 0.1 vs. -0.1 ± 0.1, respectively, all p > .05) compared with their controls. Iodized salt intake improved iodine status of both pregnant women and their children and also child cognitive development.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".