MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390661236 · doi:10.1371/journal.pgph.0001860

Critical research gaps in treating growth faltering in infants under 6 months: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2024· review· en· W4390661236 on OpenAlexaff
Cecília Tomori, Deborah L. O’Connor, Mija Ververs, Dania Orta‐Aleman, Katerina Paone, Chakra Budhathoki, Rafael Pérez‐Escamilla

Bibliographic record

VenuePLOS Global Public Health · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicChild Nutrition and Water Access
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesJohns Hopkins UniversityWorld Health Organization
KeywordsMedicineBreastfeedingMalnutritionPsychological interventionWastingContext (archaeology)PediatricsSystematic reviewBreast feedingWeight gainMeta-analysisRandomized controlled trialEnvironmental healthMEDLINEPsychiatryBody weight

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2020, 149.2 million children worldwide under 5 years suffered from stunting, and 45.4 million experienced wasting. Many infants are born already stunted, while others are at high risk for growth faltering early after birth. Growth faltering is linked to transgenerational impacts of poverty and marginalization. Few interventions address growth faltering in infants under 6 months, despite a likely increasing prevalence due to the negative global economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Breastfeeding is a critical intervention to alleviate malnutrition and improve child health outcomes, but rarely receives adequate attention in growth faltering interventions. A systematic review and meta-analysis were undertaken to identify and evaluate interventions addressing growth faltering among infants under 6 months that employed supplemental milks. The review was carried out following guidelines from the USA National Academy of Medicine. A total of 10,405 references were identified, and after deduplication 7390 studies were screened for eligibility. Of these, 227 were assessed for full text eligibility and relevance. Two randomized controlled trials were ultimately included, which differed in inclusion criteria and methodology and had few shared outcomes. Both studies had small sample sizes, high attrition and high risk of bias. A Bangladeshi study (n = 153) found significantly higher rates of weight gain for F-100 and diluted F-100 (DF-100) compared with infant formula (IF), while a DRC trial (n = 146) did not find statistically significant differences in rate of weight gain for DF-100 compared with IF offered in the context of broader lactation and relactation support. The meta-analysis of rate of weight gain showed no statistical difference and some evidence of moderate heterogeneity. Few interventions address growth faltering among infants under 6 months. These studies have limited generalizability and have not comprehensively supported lactation. Greater investment is necessary to accelerate research that addresses growth faltering following a new research framework that calls for comprehensive lactation support.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.410
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.008
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.325
GPT teacher head0.506
Teacher spread0.181 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLOS Global Public HealthSame topicChild Nutrition and Water AccessFrench-language works237,207