Introduction of complementary feeding for infants: a dilemma for parents and caregivers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data are scarce with respect to infant iron status, but at least in developing country settings where newborn iron stores may be suboptimal, exclusive breastfeeding without iron supplementation through 6 months may compromise hematologic status (WHO 2002). Our objective was to systematically review the scientific literature regarding iron and hematologic status among infants breastfed exclusively to 6 months, stratified by developed versus developing countries. Methods An electronic search of the MEDLINE database was conducted for studies of iron deficiency (ID) and (IDA) in infants exclusively breastfed in developed and developing countries. Prevalence estimates were calculated as weighted averages, and compared using a 2‐sided test of proportions. Results Twenty nine observational studies and three of eight RCTs met the inclusion criteria. All RCTs were conducted in developing countries. The prevalence estimates for healthy exclusively breastfed infants living in developed (n=769) and developing (n=642) countries, respectively, was 21.9% and 14.1% for ID (p = 0.0001), and 12.2% and 18.2% (p= 0.0019). Conclusion A substantial proportion of exclusively breastfed infants develop ID, IDA, and compromise hematologic status in both developed and developing countries. Data to support the current recommendation of solid commencement at six months is limited regarding irons status. Larger randomized controlled trials, perhaps in multi centre design, are needed to investigate the advantages and disadvantages of introduction of solids before and after six months of age.
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 | 0.036 | 0.095 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".