Skip to main content
. 2025 Jan 24;16:1003. doi: 10.1038/s41467-025-56259-1

Table 6.

Estimated marginal means of fractional zinc absorption (%) and amount of zinc (mg) absorbed from study meals, and mean differences (95% confidence intervals) between meals in Kenyan children aged 24–36 monthsa

Fractional zinc absorption (%)1 Amount of zinc absorbed (mg)2
Meal type Geometric mean (95% CI) Ratio of geometric means3 (95% CI) P-value Geometric mean (95% CI) Ratio of geometric means3 (95% CI) P-value
Primary outcome:
LZ: no crickets – low Zn enriched 15.2 (12.9, 18.1) Reference 0.14 (0.11, 0.16) Reference
WC: whole cricket flour 13.8 (11.6, 16.4) 0.9 (0.7, 1.2) 1.000 0.36 (0.30, 0.43) 2.6 (1.9, 3.6) <0.001
Secondary outcomes:
WC: whole cricket flour 13.8 (11.6, 16.4) Reference 0.36 (0.30, 0.43) Reference
EC: low-chitin cricket flour 12.6 (10.6, 15.0) 0.9 (0.7, 1.2) 1.000 0.34 (0.28, 0.40) 0.9 (0.7, 1.3) 1.000
HZ: no crickets – high Zn enriched 7.3 (6.1, 8.8) Reference 0.24 (0.20, 0.29) Reference
WC: whole cricket flour 13.8 (11.6, 16.4) 1.9 (1.4, 2.6) <0.001 0.36 (0.30, 0.43) 1.5 (1.1, 2.1) 0.004
EC: low-chitin cricket flour 12.6 (10.6, 15.0) 1.7 (1.3, 2.4) <0.001 0.34 (0.28, 0.40) 1.4 (1.0, 2.0) 0.019
LZ: no crickets – low Zn enriched 15.2 (12.9, 18.1) 2.1 (1.5, 2.9) <0.001 0.14 (0.11, 0.16) 0.6 (0.4, 0.8) <0.001

aValues are geometric means (95% CIs). Linear mixed model with subject as random factor; meals, block and meal sequence within block as fixed factors; and serum zinc (SZn) as fixed covariate. P-values reflect two-sided testing with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. 1Fractional zinc absorption (%) from test maize flour meal with WC) 16.14 g intrinsically labeled (0.41 mg 67Zn) whole cricket flour (n = 28); EC) 15.54 g intrinsically labeled (0.33 mg 67Zn) low-chitin cricket flour + unlabeled 0.51 mg ZnSO4 (n = 28); HZ) 0.75 mg 68ZnSO4 + unlabeled 2.34 mg ZnSO4 (n = 25); and LZ) 0.75 mg 68ZnSO4 (n = 29), respectively, in Kenyan children. ZnSO4, zinc sulfate. 2Calculated based on the fractional absorption and zinc content of the test meals (Table 1). 3A ratio of geometric means <1 should be interpreted as a negative effect compared to the reference, and a ratio >1 as a positive effect compared to the reference. For instance, a ratio of 0.9 indicates that the treatment effect is 10% lower compared to the reference. A 95% CI that includes 1 does not rule out a null effect.