A Randomized Control Trial to Assess the Efficacy and Safety of Manna Go Grains to Promote Growth, Immunity, and Well-Being in Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Nutrition in school-going children is crucial for their lifetime. India witnesses macro and micronutrient deficiencies in school-going children. The present study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of Manna go grains in promoting and improving growth, immunity, and well-being in children. Method: This was a 90-day randomized, controlled, parallel-arm clinical trial. 6-12 years old apparently healthy sixty-two children were randomized either into a test (Manna go grains plus milk) or a control group (milk) in a 1:1 ratio. We assessed changes in growth, immunity, appetite, and overall well-being before and after treatment. Result: The test group showed a significant increase in height, weight, height to age, and weight to age Z score and percentile, which was greater than the control group. There was significantly more improvement in VO2 max and appetite of children in the test group was observed as compared to the control group. A significant reduction in recurrent URTI episodes, sick days, recovery days, and missed school days was observed in the test group compared to the control. Memory questionnaire scores also increased significantly by 75% and 27.61% in the test and control groups. Test group parents reported significantly better growth, stamina, and immunity than the control group. There was clinically and statistically insignificant change in CBC, serum iron, serum calcium, and immunity markers like CD3, CD4, CD8, and IgG in both groups. Conclusion: Thus, Manna Go grains are thought to be a good candidate as a supplement for potentially stimulating growth and development in children and promoting their well-being.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".