Whole-population perspective is needed for analyses and actions to address linear growth faltering in low- and middle-income countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Linear growth faltering (LGF), or slower than normal growth in height, is widely considered an indicator of suboptimal conditions affecting children’s development and health in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Recently, Benjamin-Chung and collaborating members of the Healthy Birth, Growth and Development Knowledge integration (HBGDki) consortium described the early onset and low reversal rates of LGF in 32 cohort studies that followed over 52,000 children from birth to 24 months of age in 14 countries. Their adoption and extension of conventionally used growth metrics to describe faltering patterns led to findings that echo a long-standing assumption that LGF in resource-constrained settings occurs mainly during early infancy and is mostly irreversible thereafter. Here, we discuss limitations of their methods and suggest an alternative approach that leads to different conclusions about the rate and timing of LGF in LMICs.
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 | 0.029 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.005 |
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".