Those with height-for-age z ratings (HAZ) higher than or equivalent to − 2 were categorized as “healthy,” whereas those with ratings less than or equivalent to − 3 were considered badly stunted. At 18 months, 30 and 25 kids pleased these requirements for healthy and badly stunted, respectively, whereas at 24 months, 27 and 20 kids got these classifications; the staying kids were categorized as reasonably stunted (HAZ in between − 2 and − 3). We integrated anthropometric and PCR information to choose fecal samples gathered at 24 months from 2 kids: (i) a healthy person (kid ID 7114 in table S1) with a HAZ rating of − 0.71, a WAZ rating of − 1.49, and a WHZ rating of − 1.62 who was ETBF-negative at the 2 time points checked, and (ii) a significantly stunted and reasonably underweight person (kid ID 7004) with a HAZ rating of − 3.02, a WAZ rating of − 2.51, and a WHZ rating of − 1.34 who was ETBF-positive at both time points.

Those with height-for-age z ratings (HAZ) higher than or equivalent to − 2 were categorized as “healthy,” whereas those with ratings less than or equivalent to − 3 were considered significantly stunted. At 18 months, 30 and 25 kids pleased these requirements for healthy and significantly stunted, respectively, whereas at 24 months, 27 and 20 kids got these classifications; the staying kids were categorized as reasonably stunted (HAZ in between − 2 and − 3). We integrated anthropometric and PCR information to choose fecal samples gathered at 24 months from 2 kids: (i) a healthy person (kid ID 7114 in table S1) with a HAZ rating of − 0.71, a WAZ rating of − 1.49, and a WHZ rating of − 1.62 who was ETBF-negative at the 2 time points evaluated, and (ii) a significantly stunted and reasonably underweight person (kid ID 7004) with a HAZ rating of − 3.02, a WAZ rating of − 2.51, and a WHZ rating of − 1.34 who was ETBF-positive at both time points.