Treating high-risk moderate acute malnutrition using therapeutic food compared with nutrition counseling (Hi-MAM Study): a cluster-randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a lack of consensus on what is the most appropriate treatment of moderate acute malnutrition (MAM). OBJECTIVES: We aimed to determine if provision of ready-to-use-therapeutic food (RUTF) and antibiotics to "high-risk" MAM (HR-MAM) children in addition to nutritional counseling would result in higher recovery and less deterioration than nutrition counseling alone. METHODS: At the 11 intervention clinics, HR-MAM children were given RUTF and amoxicillin along with standard nutrition counseling, for 2-12 wk. All others received 6 wk of nutrition counseling alone. HR-MAM was defined as midupper arm circumference (MUAC) <11.9 cm, weight-for-age z score (WAZ) <-3.5, mother not the main caregiver, or a child <2 y old not being breastfed. Outcomes were compared using intention-to-treat analysis. RESULTS: Analysis included 573 children at the intervention sites and 714 children at the control sites. Of the intervention group, 317 (55%) were classified as HR-MAM. Short-term recovery was greater at the intervention sites [48% compared with 39% at week 12; risk difference (rd): 0.08; 95% CI: 0.03, 0.13]. The intervention group had lower risk of deteriorating to severe acute malnutrition (SAM) (18% compared with 24%; rd: -0.07; 95% CI: -0.11, -0.04), lower risk of dying (1.8% compared with 3.1%; rd: -0.02; 95% CI: -0.03, -0.00), and greater gains in MUAC and weight than did children at the control sites. However, by 24 wk, the risk of SAM was similar between the 2 arms (31% compared with 34%; rd: -0.03; 95% CI: -0.09, 0.02). Control group data identified recent illness, MUAC <12.0 cm, WAZ <-3, dropping anthropometry, age <12 mo, being a twin, and a history of previous SAM as risk factors for deterioration. CONCLUSIONS: Provision of RUTF and antibiotics to HR-MAM children improved short-term recovery and reduced short-term risk of deterioration. However, recovery rates were still suboptimal and differences were not sustained by 6 mo post enrollment.This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT03647150.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".