Refocusing vitamin A supplementation programmes to reach the most vulnerable
Bibliographic record
Abstract
WHO recommends vitamin A supplementation (VAS) programmes for children 6-59 months where vitamin A deficiency is a public health problem. However, resources for VAS are falling short of current needs and programme coverage is suffering. The authors present the case for considering the options for shifting efforts and resources from a generalised approach, to prioritising resources to reach populations with continued high child mortality rates and high vitamin A deficiency prevalence to maximise child survival benefits . This includes evaluating where child mortality and/or vitamin A deficiency has dropped, as well as using under 5 mortality rates as a proxy for vitamin A deficiency, in the absence of recent data. The analysis supports that fewer countries may now need to prioritise VAS than in the year 2000, but that there are still a large number of countries that do. The authors also outline next steps for analysing options for improved targeting and cost-effectiveness of programmes. Focusing VAS resources to reach the most vulnerable is an efficient use of resources and will continue to promote young child survival.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".