A systematic review and meta-analysis of the association between neglected tropical diseases and malnutrition: more research needed on diseases other than intestinal parasites, leishmaniasis and leprosy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: According to the WHO, neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) affect over 2 billion people worldwide. While the links between nutrition and many diseases have become clear over recent decade, NTDs have lagged behind and the linkage with nutrition is largely unknown. We conducted this systematic review with meta-analysis to determine current knowledge on the association between NTDs and malnutrition. Methodology: PubMed, Embase, Scopus and African Journal online databases were searched using predefined search terms. We included all original articles with a case-control design and at least one NTD. The studies had to compare nutritional parameters between infected cases and control participants. Articles that did not report original data were excluded. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Pooled estimates were conducted using the random-effects model. The publication bias of studies was determined by funnel plots. Q and I2 statistics were used to assess the heterogeneity of the studies. Results: After screening 1294 articles, only 16 qualified for the systematic review and 12 for meta-analysis. These predominately had a focus on soil-transmitted helminthiasis (ascariasis, hookworm diseases, trichuriasis) and schistosomiasis, with a minority concerning leishmaniasis and leprosy. Pooled estimates showed an association between intestinal parasites and stunting in children (OR= 1.38, 95%CI: 1.14-1.66, I2 = 0%, tau^2 = 0). We also identified a moderate association established between serum iron deficiency (OR=4.67, 95%CI: 1.91-11.44, tau^2 =0) and intestinal parasites. Conclusions/Significance: Of the 20 NTDs, the links between diet and disease have been explored for only four. There is a paucity of data from low and middle-income countries and least developed countries where the NTD burden is high. Therefore, more research into the role of malnutrition in NTDs other than intestinal parasites, leishmaniasis and leprosy is needed.
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 | 0.028 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.028 | 0.039 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".