ArticleScientific reports2025
Evaluation of the nutritional quality of food composites developed from local ingredients to target the needs of persons experiencing nodding syndrome in Northern Uganda.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect ofFood science & nutrition · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Undernutrition is widespread in developing countries and exacerbated by conditions such as nodding syndrome, with a prevalence of 4.5% in northern Uganda. To combat this problem, nutrient-rich formulae were developed using locally sourced ingredients. Preferred formulae were analysed for nutritional, physico-chemical, antinutritional, and functional properties using standard methods. The composites were developed from two main energy lines (maize and sorghum), with ingredients at ratios of 70:2:15:5:3:5 for maize/sorghum: silver fish: soybean: orange-fleshed sweet potato (OFSP): beans: chia seeds, respectively. Compared with the sorghum-based formula, maize-based formula had significantly higher amounts of selenium, potassium, and vitamins A and D; the bioavailability of iron and zinc; and in vitro protein digestibility. Unlike the sorghum-based formula, the maize-based formula also had lower levels of antinutritional factors and a better fatty acid profile (p < 0.05). The sorghum-based formula had significantly higher levels of ash, crude protein, magnesium, calcium, and vitamin B6 and a higher oil absorption capacity and bulk density. Whereas maize-based formula is good in levels of selenium, vitamins A and D, bioavailability of zinc and iron, protein digestibility and antinutritional factors, the sorghum-based formula is better in terms of crude protein, ash, oil absorption capacity and bulk density. Therefore, the choice of each formula should depend on the benefits targeted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.