MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4245766526 · doi:10.29392//001c.11950

Testing the efficacy of the Lucky Iron Fish® in reversing iron deficiency anemia in rural, impoverished regions of Guatemala

2018· article· en· W4245766526 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ana María Rodríguez-Vivaldi, Kathy A. Beerman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Global Health Reports · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFish Biology and Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersWashington State University
KeywordsReversingAnemiaFish <Actinopterygii>Iron deficiencyMedicineEnvironmental healthBiologyFisheryInternal medicineEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

# Background According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the most common nutrient-related cause of anemia is a lack of dietary iron (iron deficiency anemia, IDA). In regions of the world where populations are at greatest risk for IDA, barriers make screening and subsequent treatment challenging. Thus, IDA remains one of the most common, yet treatable, nutrition-related health problems in developing countries. A new approach to IDA remediation, called Lucky Iron Fish^®^ (LIF) (Lucky Iron Fish, Guelph, Canada), overcomes many of these challenges. When placed into a pot of boiling, acidified water for 10 minutes, the LIF releases iron into the cooking water. Subsequently, the food absorbs the iron from the iron-enriched water, increasing the overall iron content of the meal. The purpose of this 52-week longitudinal study, conducted in rural, underserved regions of Guatemala, was to determine whether or not iron status improved after 12 months of using a LIF for meal preparation. # Methods Of the 302 people screened for IDA, 145 (48.0%) met the WHO standards for IDA. Heads of households were instructed how to prepare meals using a LIF. Subjects were asked to consume at least one meal/d prepared with a LIF and to return 1 year later to have their iron status retested. # Results A total of 56 (38.6%) subjects returned after 52 weeks to have their iron status retested. A paired t test showed that mean differences in both hematocrit and hemoglobin values were significantly higher at week 52 (*P*\<0.001 for both) compared to baseline. A total of 45 (80.3%) subjects were no longer anemic at week 52, with a mean difference (follow-up being higher than baseline) in hemoglobin of 1.28 (19.6% improvement) and a mean difference in hematocrit of 3.8 (28.5% improvement). # Conclusions The results of this study suggests that regular use of a LIF for meal preparation offers a safe and effective means to reverse IDA in high risk populations that lack the access and financial resources to purchase iron-rich foods or dietary supplements.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.333

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.266 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Global Health ReportsSame topicFish Biology and Ecology StudiesFrench-language works237,207