Effectiveness of a nonweight‐based daily dosage of ready‐to‐use therapeutic food in children suffering from uncomplicated severe acute malnutrition: A nonrandomized, noninferiority analysis of programme data in Afghanistan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Severe acute malnutrition (SAM) remains a major global public health problem. SAM cases are treated using ready-to-use therapeutic food (RUTF) at a dosage of ∼200 kcal/kg/day per the standard treatment protocol (STD). Emerging evidence on simplifications to the standard protocol, which among other adaptations, includes reducing the daily RUTF dosage, indicates that it is effective and safe for treating children with SAM. In response to a foreseen stock shortage of RUTF, the government of Afghanistan endorsed the temporary use of a modified treatment protocol in which the daily RUTF dosage was prescribed at 1000 kcal/day (irrespective of body weight) until the child achieved moderate acute malnutrition status (weight-for-height z-score ≥ -3 or mid-upper arm circumference [MUAC] ≥ 115 mm), at which point 500 kcal/day was prescribed until cured (modified treatment protocol [MTP]). In this paper, we report the results of this nonweight-based daily RUTF dosage experience. Data of 2042 children with SAM, treated using either the STD protocol (n = 269) or the MTP protocol (n = 1773) from August 2019 to March 2021 in five provinces, were analyzed. The per-protocol analyses confirmed noninferiority of MTP protocol when compared to STD protocol for recovery rate [93.3% vs. 90.2%; ∆ (95% confidence interval, CI) = 3.1 (-0.9; 7.2) %] and length-of-stay [82.6 vs. 75.6 days; ∆ (95% CI) = 6.9 (3.3; 10.5) days], considering the margin of noninferiority of -10% and +14 days, respectively. Weight gain velocity was smaller in the MTP protocol group than in the STD protocol group [3.7 (1.7) vs. 5.2 (2.9) g/kg/day; ∆ (95% CI) = -1.5 (-1.8, -1.2); p < 0.001]. The STD group had a significantly higher mean than the MTP group for absolute MUAC gain [∆ (95% CI) = 1.7 (1.0; 2.3) mm; p < 0.001] and the MUAC velocity [∆ (95% CI) = 0.29 (0.20; 0.37) mm/week; p < 0.001]. Our results confirm the noninferiority of a nonweight-based daily dosage and support the endorsement of this modification as an alternative to the standard protocol in resource-constrained contexts.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".