Industrialized complementary food for infants and young children: a systematic review protocol of their nutrient profile and impact on health outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Complementary feeding plays an important role in the patterns of growth, development and formation of eating habits. Although the consumption of complementary foods (CF) with an inadequate Nutrient Profile (NP) is considered a risk factor for morbidities, there are still few studies that assess its repercussions on children’s diet and health. This review aims to identify the participation of industrialized CF consumption in children’s diet, the NP of these foods, and their impact on quality diet and on health of children under two years of age. This is a protocol study for systematic review registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) CDR 42022321891, following recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P). We will seek out cross-sectional or cohort studies investigating the NP of industrialized CF recommended for children up to two years and/or that evaluated the association between the CF consumption and the children’s diet and health. The search for records will be conducted on PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, and Scielo. Two independent reviewers will perform all steps of the systematic review. The methodological quality will be analyzed using the Newcastle–Ottawa scale (NOS) and Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2). Results will be presented by means, medians, confidence interval (95%), standard deviation for the NP of foods, and to assess the health impact, comparisons of outcome measures, effect sizes (ORs and RRs) will be extracted. The high consumption of industrialized CF and the negative impact on children’s health, in addition to the gap in the literature of studies assessing the NP and consumption of these foods by children under 24 months, justify the importance of a review on this subject focusing on that age group.
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 | 0.073 | 0.087 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.027 | 0.017 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.054 | 0.006 |
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".