Critical research gaps in treating growth faltering in infants under 6 months: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.020 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.029 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".