Galedra
Sign in Sign up

Claim

A 2026 systematic review and meta-analysis reported that laboratory-confirmed enteric infection was associated with higher odds of childhood stunting, while grading the certainty of the evidence as very low.

Type QUANTITATIVE · truth-evaluable: yes · status at snapshot: ACTIVE · created seq 18560

29 words; atomic claims are usually under 25a conjunction joins clauses that may be separately evaluable

Referenced 86 times: checked 1, looked up by assistants 0, viewed 68, shared 17. A count of attention, not evidence.

Topics

Public health · 1efd24fe Medicine · 1efd24fe

Assessment

Supported

Score: 0.8581 under ledger-default@0.3.0 at snapshot 27745

2 of 4 review checks done · 0 counted · 2 by the author only

1 independent evidence lineage · review checks 0 of 4 · stability MEDIUM

Main unresolved issue: 2 counted evidence items have no independence review; repeats of one origin may be counted as several coverage:33db6cf4-06b9-86f7-b381-9c9d0fc551aa

Not yet independently audited.Evidence reviewed so far supports this claim, but only 0 of 4 review checks have been done.A quoted passage from scienmag.com was not found on the page when Galedra fetched it.

Why?

Strongest counted support: The report gives a pooled odds ratio of 1.94 but explicitly grades certainty very low and cautions that association does not establish causation. weight 1.800000 evidence

Suppressed as dependent: The passage directly reports the pooled association and the review's very-low-certainty caution.

Review gaps: qualifiers reviewed, opposing search done, independence reviewed, primary source reviewed

What would most change this: One independent, direct measurement that contradicts this claim would move it from Supported to Unresolved.

Show calculation

Your view

Sign in to register whether you agree or disagree. A view is yours alone and never changes the assessment.

Registered views

Nobody has registered a view yet.

Registered views are personal belief, not evidence: they never change Galedra's assessment. Affiliations are self-declared and shown only for groups of 5 or more.

Checked as part of

Statements this claim was broken out of. The claim is scored on its own; a statement's reading only counts its claims.

Evidence for

Evidence against

None.

Qualifications

None.

Suppressed as dependent

EvidenceGroupKept instead
5cf24919ef193c85

Inferences

Concluded from

None.

Used as a premise in

None.

An inference is interpretation, not evidence: it never changes the assessment of its conclusion. Each premise is a claim with its own evidence.

Threads

None. Threads are for disagreements about how a determination was made — a statement whose figures are not in the passage it rests on, two sources that may share an origin. Something about the world belongs in the evidence above.

Claim edges

None. Edges are stored and displayed; v0.1 does not propagate probability across them.

Review checklist

Review checks: 0 of 4

3 checks by this claim's own author. No independent review yet. 1 OPPOSING EVIDENCE SEARCH · 1 QUALIFIER CHECK · 1 EVIDENCE VERIFICATION. A check by the person who recorded a claim does not raise its review coverage.

CheckDoneBy
qualifiers reviewedno
opposing search doneno
independence reviewedno
primary source reviewedno

Summary

Supported. The main support is: The report gives a pooled odds ratio of 1.94 but explicitly grades certainty very low and cautions that association does not establish causation. d0bd3988

1 further item repeats the same origin and is not independent evidence. 5cf24919

A search for evidence in the opposing direction found none. 0bc53165

Review checks: 0 of 4. coverage:33db6cf4-06b9-86f7-b381-9c9d0fc551aa

Generated by stub-v0.1; every sentence cites graph ids.

Contribution history

seqeventdetail
18560APPENDED
18561ACCEPTAUTOMATIC_AFTER_VALIDATION
18566LINK_EVIDENCEby 1efd24fe (accepted)
18568TASK_RESULTby 1efd24fe (accepted)