Variation in outcomes of the Melbourne Infant, Feeding, Activity and Nutrition Trial (INFANT) according to maternal education and age 2 and 3·5 years post-intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess whether the long-term effectiveness of the Melbourne Infant, Feeding, Activity and Nutrition Trial (INFANT) at 2 and 3·5 years post-intervention varied according to maternal education and age. DESIGN: Two and 3·5 years post-intervention follow-up of the INFANT cluster-randomised controlled trial. Outcomes at both follow-ups included children's BMI z-scores, physical activity (ActiGraph), television viewing (parental report) and dietary intake (3 × 24-h dietary recalls). Dichotomous moderator variables included maternal education (university v. no university) and age (< 32 v. ≥ 32 years). SETTING: Population based. PARTICIPANTS: Families completing the 15-month programme (n 492) were invited to participate in the follow-ups when their child was 3·6 and 5 years old. RESULTS: At the 2-year follow-up, the intervention effects on vegetable (positive) and sweet snack (negative) intake were greater in children with higher educated mothers, whereas water consumption (positive) was greater in children with lower educated mothers. At the 2-year follow-up, the intervention was more effective in increasing water consumption in children with younger mothers and decreasing sweet snack intake in children with older mothers (opposite result observed at the 3·5-year follow-up). At the 3·5-year follow-up, children with younger and older mothers increased and decreased their consumption of savoury snacks, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Moderation by maternal education and age were observed for some outcomes; however, clear patterns were not evident at both follow-ups, with little consistency across outcomes. This indicates that INFANT was more-or-less equally effective in children irrespective of their mother's education level or age, which is important in community-based interventions.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".