Efficacy of different schemes of supplementation with micronutrient powders on anemia and micronutrient status in infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To compare the efficacy of different dosing and duration schemes for micronutrient powders on anemia, and micronutrient status. We supplemented a group of 400 infants 6–11 months old, living in the northern highlands of Peru, with powder micronutrients containing iron, zinc, vitamin A, vitamin C and folic acid. Children were randomly assigned to 4 supplementation groups: a) 6 months daily supplementation; b) 6 months intermittent; c) 12 months daily and; d) 12 months intermittent supplementation, supplements were provided monthly at the baby well visit. At entry and after supplementation scheme, hemoglobin and micronutrient status were measured. We found baseline anemia 73%, 71%, 73% and 76% respectively (p=0.885); at 6 months supplementation anemia was reduced to 40%, 40%, 34% and 52% respectively (p=0.086). Initial mean hemoglobin values were 116, 117, 117, and 115 g/L respectively. At 6 months mean hemoglobin values were 125, 123, 126 and 122 g/L. During the first 6 months of supplementation with micronutrient powders, the results suggest that all groups benefitted from supplementation, without large differences between them. After 6 months, the prevalence of anemia was still high. Supported by Micronutrient Initiative, Canada.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".