Impact of iron fortification on anaemia and iron deficiency among pre-school children living in Rural Ghana
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anaemia in young sub-Saharan African children may be due to the double burden of malaria and iron deficiency. Primary analysis of a double-blind, cluster randomized trial of iron containing micronutrient powder supplementation in Ghanaian children aged 6 to 35 months found no difference in malaria risk between intervention and placebo groups. Here, we performed a secondary analysis of the trial data to assess the impact of long-term prophylactic iron fortificant on the risk of iron deficiency and anaemia in trial subjects. This population-based randomized-cluster trial involved 1958 children aged between 6 to 35 months, identified at home and able to eat semi-solid foods. The intervention group (n = 967) received a daily dose containing 12.5 mg elemental iron (as ferrous fumarate), vitamin A (400 μg), ascorbic acid (30 mg) and zinc (5 mg). The placebo group (n = 991) received a similar micronutrient powder but without iron. Micronutrient powder was provided daily to both groups for 5 months. At baseline and endline, health assessment questionnaires were administered and blood samples collected for analysis. The two groups had similar baseline anthropometry, anaemia, iron status, demographic characteristics, and dietary intakes (p > 0.05). Of the 1904 (97.2%) children who remained at the end of the intervention, the intervention group had significantly higher haemoglobin (p = 0.0001) and serum ferritin (p = 0.0002) levels than the placebo group. Soluble transferrin receptor levels were more saturated among children from the iron group compared to non-iron group (p = 0.012). Anaemia status in the iron group improved compared to the placebo group (p = 0.03). Continued long-term routine use of micronutrient powder containing prophylactic iron reduced anaemia, iron deficiency and iron deficiency anaemia among pre-school children living in rural Ghana's malaria endemic area.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".