Timing of Complementary Feeding and Infant Growth Trajectories in Prospective Cohort Studies: A Systematized Review and Analysis of Socioecological Variation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Complementary feeding (CF) before 6 months of age is associated with both infant growth faltering and rapid growth. This disparity may reflect reverse causality and local norms. We conducted a systematized review of prospective studies examining infant growth and CF. We examined the potential for reverse causality and socioecological factors that appeared to influence feeding and growth outcomes. In 22 studies that met inclusion criteria, growth trajectories following earlier CF largely tracked prior growth. Earlier CF was generally associated with slower growth in lower resource populations, and more rapid growth in higher resource contexts. Local norms and caregivers' perceptions of growth were often discussed as factors impacting feeding decisions, but were not explicitly modeled. Future research may benefit from bioethnographic approaches that integrate contextual understanding of local dynamics to more comprehensively examine interactions between growth trajectories, caregiver perceptions, local norms, and health risks that influence CF timing and growth outcomes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".