MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3211817047 · doi:10.1002/cl2.1202

PROTOCOL: Effectiveness of nutrition counselling for pregnant women in low‐ and middle‐income countries to improve maternal, infant and child behavioural, nutritional and health outcomes: A systematic review

2021· review· en· W3211817047 on OpenAlexaff
Omar Dewidar, Ammar Saad, Aqeel Baqar, Jessica C. John, Alison Riddle, Erika Ota, Jacqueline K. Kung’u, Mandana Arabi, Manoj Kumar Raut, Seth Selorm Klobodu, Sarah Rowe, Jennifer Busch‐Hallen, Chowdhury Jalal, Sara Wuehler, Vivian Welch

Bibliographic record

VenueCampbell Systematic Reviews · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicChild Nutrition and Water Access
Canadian institutionsNutrition InternationalBruyèreUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionMedicineLow and middle income countriesChild healthSystematic reviewEnvironmental healthLow incomeDeveloping countryFamily medicineMEDLINENursingEconomic growthSocioeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this systematic review is to identify, appraise and synthesise the best available evidence on the effectiveness of nutritional counselling and education interventions on maternal, infant and child health outcomes, and assess the differences in effects across participants' PROGRESS+ characteristics. To achieve these objectives, we will aim to answer the following research questions: What is the effectiveness of nutrition counselling interventions for pregnant women in low- or middle-income countries on maternal, infant and child health outcomes? What are the impacts of nutrition counselling interventions on maternal, infant and child health outcomes across participants' PROGRESS+ characteristics?

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.310 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCampbell Systematic ReviewsSame topicChild Nutrition and Water AccessFrench-language works237,207