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 months^a

	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.

Search