MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403072609 · doi:10.1111/mcn.13722

Use of multiple micronutrient supplementation integrated into routine antenatal care: A discussion of research priorities

2024· article· en· W4403072609 on OpenAlexaff
Tabassum Firoz, Jahnavi Daru, Jennifer Busch‐Hallen, Özge Tunçalp, Lisa M. Rogers

Bibliographic record

VenueMaternal and Child Nutrition · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicChild Nutrition and Water Access
Canadian institutionsNutrition International
FundersWorld Health OrganizationBill and Melinda Gates FoundationUnited States Agency for International Development
KeywordsMedicineCLARITYContext (archaeology)MicronutrientImplementation researchBest practiceInclusion (mineral)Research designEnvironmental healthNursingPsychological intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Optimal maternal nutrition, including adequate intake and status of essential micronutrients, is important for the health of women and developing infants. Currently, the World Health Organization (WHO) Antenatal care recommendations for a positive pregnancy experience recommend daily iron and folic acid (IFA) supplementation as the standard of care. The use of multiple micronutrient supplements (MMS) is recommended in the context of rigorous research as more evidence was needed regarding the impact of switching from IFA supplements to MMS, including evaluation of critical clinical maternal and perinatal outcomes, acceptability, feasibility, sustainability, equity and cost-effectiveness. WHO convened a technical consultation of key stakeholders to discuss research priorities with the objective of providing guidance and clarity to donors, implementers and researchers about this recommendation. The overarching principles of the research agenda include the use of clinical indicators and impact measures that are applicable across studies and settings and the inclusion of outcomes that are important to women. Future studies should consider using standardized protocols based on current best practices to measure critical outcomes such as gestational age (GA) and birthweight (BW) in studies. As GA and BW are influenced by multiple factors, more research is needed to understand the biological impact pathways, and how initiation and considerations for timing of MMS influence these outcomes. A set of core clinical indicators was agreed upon during the technical consultation. For implementation research, the Evidence-to-Decision framework was used as a resource for discussing components of implementation research. The implementation research questions, key indicators and performance measures will depend on country-specific context and bottlenecks that require further research and improved solutions to enable the successful implementation of iron-containing supplements.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.304
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.262
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.304
Threshold uncertainty score0.858

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3040.262
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.005
Bibliometrics0.0050.008
Science and technology studies0.0060.009
Scholarly communication0.0180.025
Open science0.0080.011
Research integrity0.0230.024
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaternal and Child NutritionSame topicChild Nutrition and Water AccessFrench-language works237,207