MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4383506536 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0283504

Factors associated with recovery from stunting at 24 months of age among infants and young children enrolled in the Pediatric Development Clinic (PDC): A retrospective cohort study in rural Rwanda

2023· article· en· W4383506536 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Mathieu Nemerimana, Silas Havugarurema, Alphonse Nshimyiryo, Angelique Charlie Karambizi, Catherine M. Kirk, Kathryn Beck, Chantal Gégout, Todd J. Anderson, Olivier Bigirumwami, Jules Maurice Ubarijoro, Patient Ngamije, Ann C. Miller

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicChild Nutrition and Water Access
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGlobal Affairs CanadaGrand Challenges CanadaWorld Health Organization
KeywordsMedicinePediatricsRetrospective cohort studyLogistic regressionPsychological interventionCohortStunted growthYoung adultCohort studyMalnutritionDemographyGerontologySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Stunting (low height/length-for-age) in early life is associated with poor long-term health and developmental outcomes. Nutrition interventions provided during the first 1,000 days of life can result in improved catch-up growth and development outcomes. We assessed factors associated with stunting recovery at 24 months of age among infants and young Children enrolled in Pediatric Development Clinics (PDC) who were stunted at 11 months of age. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included infants and young children who enrolled in PDCs in two rural districts in Rwanda between April 2014 and December 2018. Children were included in the study if their PDC enrollment happened within 2 months after birth, were stunted at 11 months of age (considered as baseline) and had a stunting status measured and analyzed at 24 months of age. We defined moderate stunting as length-for-age z-score (LAZ) < -2 and ≥-3 and severe stunting as LAZ <-3 based on the 2006 WHO child growth standards. Stunting recovery at 24 months of age was defined as the child's LAZ changing from <-2 to > -2. We used logistic regression analysis to investigate factors associated with stunting recovery. The factors analyzed included child and mother's socio-demographic and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: Of the 179 children who were eligible for this study, 100 (55.9%) were severely stunted at age 11 months. At 24 months of age, 37 (20.7%) children recovered from stunting, while 21 (21.0%) severely stunted children improved to moderate stunting and 20 (25.3%) moderately-stunted children worsened to severe stunting. Early stunting at 6 months of age was associated with lower odds of stunting recovery, with the odds of stunting recovery being reduced by 80% (aOR: 0.2; 95%CI: 0.07-0.81) for severely stunted children and by 60% (aOR: 0.4; 95% CI: 0.16-0.97) for moderately stunted children (p = 0.035). Lower odds of stunting recovery were also observed among children who were severely stunted at 11 months of age (aOR: 0.3; 95% CI: 0.1-0.6, p = 0.004). No other maternal or child factors were statistically significantly associated with recovery from stunting at 24 months in our final adjusted model. CONCLUSION: A substantial proportion of children who were enrolled in PDC within 2 months after birth and were stunted at 11 months of age recovered from stunting at 24 months of age. Children who were severely stunted at 11 months of age (baseline) and those who were stunted at 6 months of age were less likely to recover from stunting at 24 months of age compared to those with moderate stunting at 11 months and no stunting at 6 months of age, respectively. More focus on prevention and early identification of stunting during pregnancy and early life is important to the healthy growth of a child.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicChild Nutrition and Water Access→French-language works237,207→