MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4414617459 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2024-097286

Stunting incidence and reversal as metrics of postnatal linear growth faltering in low- and middle-income countries: a critical appraisal and simulation study

2025· article· en· W4414617459 on OpenAlexafffund
Daniel Roth, Kelly Watson, Diego G. Bassani

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicChild Nutrition and Water Access
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchBill and Melinda Gates Foundation
KeywordsLinear growthIncidence (geometry)Critical appraisalLinear relationshipEpidemiologyLinear regression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Length-for-age z-scores (LAZ) and stunting prevalence (%LAZ <-2) are commonly used to quantify linear growth faltering in young children in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The Healthy Birth, Growth and Development knowledge integration (HBGDki) consortium described postnatal linear growth faltering using LAZ-by-age trajectory modelling and child-level LAZ threshold-crossing events, including incident stunting onset (first occurrence of LAZ <-2) and stunting reversal (LAZ rising from <-2 to ≥-2). Using simulations, we assessed the suitability of these LAZ threshold-crossing metrics for characterising linear growth faltering in LMICs. METHODS: We simulated a synthetic cohort with a harmonically downward-shifting LAZ trajectory from birth to 24 months of age, with mean LAZs similar to the HBGDki pooled South Asian cohorts, and without any input parameters intended to differentially affect individuals' growth across the height distribution or at different ages. We compared HBGDki empirical estimates of age interval-specific frequencies of incident stunting onset and stunting reversal with those from the synthetic cohort. Using synthetic cohorts, we examined how estimates of incident onset and reversal were affected by missing data, magnitude of the whole-population shift in the LAZ distribution and strength of the between-time-point correlation. We also compared the 3-24 month pattern of linear growth faltering expressed as age-related trajectories of average growth delay (chronological age minus height-age), mean LAZ or stunting prevalence. RESULTS: Empirical estimates of age interval-specific incident stunting onset and stunting reversal in the HBGDki cohorts were similar to those observed in a synthetic cohort. Variability in LAZ threshold-crossing event rates is explained by starting LAZ, between-time-point correlation and the magnitude of the whole-population shift in the LAZ distribution. Incident stunting onset is also affected by missing data in preceding intervals. Stunting reversal occurs due to within-child variability (ie, imperfect between-time-point correlation) in the absence of any other phenomena that cause stunted children to become non-stunted at a later age. The linear growth faltering pattern based on growth delay differed from corresponding age-related trajectories of mean LAZ or stunting prevalence. CONCLUSIONS: In longitudinal studies of linear growth faltering in LMICs, LAZ threshold-crossing indicators are byproducts of whole-population shifts in LAZ and within-child variability and should be interpreted accordingly. Reporting incident stunting onset and reversal rates, or analyses in which children are grouped by the timing of LAZ threshold-crossing events, may detract from efforts to understand when and why nearly all children in LMICs grow more slowly than expected for their age. Since mean LAZ and stunting prevalence are unsuitable for quantifying the rate and timing of population-average postnatal linear growth faltering, growth delay is recommended for consideration as a preferred metric.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.056
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.092

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.056
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.385 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicChild Nutrition and Water Access→French-language works237,207→