Comparative study of stunting measurement in children using WHO procedure and stunting mat in Ghana
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective: Height data is not useful immediately without further processing. The Stunting mat was designed to stunting. However, the mat has not been validated for use in Ghana. This study compared stunting measured with the mat and stunting measured following the WHO recommended procedure. We sampled 163 children aged 6-24-m in the Bono region of Ghana. We compared stunting prevalence measured with the mat and WHO recommended procedure. We also explored the acceptability and interpretability of the two procedures among mothers and healthcare givers.Results: The prevalence of stunting was 3.7% and 11.7% using the Stunting mat and WHO procedures respectively. However, in younger aged children, the Stunting mat was more accurate in detecting stunting: Both healthcare workers and caregivers found it easy to interpret the stunting status of children using the Stunting mat. Therefore, we can conclude that the Stunting mat was less sensitive at detecting child stunting compared to the current gold way of measuring stunting in younger children. There are possibilities to improve the accuracy and utility of the Stunting mat for measuring stunting in low-resource settings by re-designing the mat to be more age appropriate.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".