MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Maternal vitamin D status during pregnancy is associated with infant anthropometry during the first year of life (267.1)

2014· article· en· W1541829408 on OpenAlexaff
Cara L. Eckhardt, Alison D. Gernand, Daniel Roth, Lisa M. Bodnar

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBirth, Development, and Health
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnthropometryMedicinePregnancyVitamin D and neurologyvitamin D deficiencyBirth weightGestational ageFetusGestationObstetricsBody mass indexPediatricsEndocrinologyInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Maternal vitamin D deficiency during pregnancy has been linked to fetal growth and may also impact child growth in infancy. We used data and blood samples from the 12‐site U.S. Collaborative Perinatal Project (1959‐65) to examine the association of maternal vitamin D status during pregnancy and infant anthropometry across the first year of life in singletons (n=2473 mother‐child pairs). Maternal serum 25‐hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) was measured at 蠄26 weeks gestation using chromatography‐tandem mass spectrometry. Infant anthropometry was expressed as z‐scores for length (LAZ), head circumference (HC‐Z), weight (WAZ), and BMI (BMI‐Z) based on measures at birth and 4, 8 and 12 months of age. We controlled for study site, and important infant and maternal characteristics in linear mixed effects models. 25(OH)D <30 nmol/L (conventional definition of deficiency) vs. 蠅30 nmol/L was associated with LAZ and HC‐Z measures that were 0.13 (95% CI: 0.03‐0.23) and 0.20 (95% CI: 0.11‐0.28) lower, respectively, across the first year of life. Differences observed by 25(OH)D in WAZ and BMI‐Z at birth resolved by 4 months of age, potentially reflecting catch‐up growth. These findings suggest that maternal vitamin D deficiency has a sustained association with markers of linear or skeletal growth during the first year of life, while initial associations with measures of weight and body composition may resolve. Grant Funding Source : Supported by R01 HD 056999

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicBirth, Development, and Health→French-language works237,207→