Are Complementary Feeding Practices Aligned with Current Recommendations? A Narrative Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The complementary feeding introduction period (introduction of solid foods alongside breastmilk or formula) is defining in children's health; however, it appears that many parents do not follow complementary feeding guidelines. Our aim was to describe current parental feeding practices during complementary feeding in relation to current recommendations and explore determinants of adherence to guidelines. We included any relevant studies published within the last decade in French or English and summarized findings by recommendation category. The timing of complementary food introduction varied widely across and within continents (earlier in North America and often delayed in Asia). The introduction of allergenic foods tended to be delayed globally. Although some parents now begin complementary feeding with solid foods (i.e., baby-led weaning), delayed introduction of lumpy textures was still prevalent in the United States and in Europe. The consumption of iron-rich foods was predominantly low in Africa. Added sugars were globally introduced early, especially in America. Evidence for the prevalence of responsive feeding practices among parents is unclear due to the small number of studies. Determinants of complementary feeding practices included parental characteristics, such as age, education, socio-economic status, and race/ethnicity. Interventions aiming to increase adherence to complementary feeding guidelines must account for parental 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 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 | 0.006 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".