MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3089584927 · doi:10.1038/s41598-020-73572-5

Spatial heterogeneity and factors influencing stunting and severe stunting among under-5 children in Ethiopia: spatial and multilevel analysis

2020· article· en· W3089584927 on OpenAlexaff
Bayuh Asmamaw Hailu, Getahun Gebre Bogale, Joseph Beyene

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicChild Nutrition and Water Access
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMalnutritionLogistic regressionMedicineEnvironmental healthPsychological interventionPublic healthDemographyPediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stunting remains a major public health concern in Ethiopia. Government needs to reshape and redesign new interventions to reduce stunting among under-five children. Hence, this study identified the problem according to location and risk factor. This study is a secondary data analysis of the 2016 Ethiopian Demographic and Health Survey. A total of 9588 children aged 0-59 months were included in the study. The spatial and multilevel logistic regression analyses were used to explore spatial heterogeneity and identify individual- and household-level factors associated with stunting and severe stunting. Spatial heterogeneity of stunting and severe stunting was seen across the study setting. Male children (AOR = 1.51, CI 1.16, 1.96); multiple births (AOR = 27.6, CI 10.73, 71.18); older children (AOR = 1.04, CI 1.01, 1.05) and anemic children (AOR = 3.21, CI 2.3, 4.49) were severely stunted at individual-level factors. Children from educated and malnourished mothers (respectively, AOR = 0.18, CI 0.05, 0.71; AOR = 5.35, CI 3.45, 8.32), and from less wealthier mothers (AOR = 5.95, CI 2.58, 13.69) were severely stunted at household-level factors. Giving priority to the hotspot areas of stunting and older and anemic children, multiple births, and maternal undernutrition is important to reduce stunting. Studies are recommended to fill the gaps of 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.945

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.245 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations53
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicChild Nutrition and Water AccessFrench-language works237,207