Is there a greater maternal than paternal influence on offspring adiposity in India?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research has provided conflicting evidence regarding fetal roots of adiposity in India. To compare the strength of association between maternal and paternal body mass indexes (BMIs) corrected for height with offspring BMI in India to examine the potential for intrauterine mechanisms to influence offspring adiposity in India, we analysed a sample of 16,528 mother-father-offspring trios from the 2005 to 2006 Indian National Family Health Survey. Children were aged 0-59 months with parents aged 15-49 years (mothers) and 15-54 years (fathers). Linear and logistic regression models, specified in multiple ways, were used to estimate associations between parental BMI* (BMI redefined by power term x (kg/m(x)) to be independent from height), and child BMI/top decile of child BMI. Higher values of maternal BMI and paternal BMI were associated with higher values of offspring BMI. In comparing the effects of maternal BMI and paternal BMI, however, no consistent differences were found in the strength of these parental influences on offspring BMI. In the fully adjusted linear model, the standardised coefficient was 0.131 (95% CI 0.110 to 0.154) for maternal BMI* and 0.079 (95% CI 0.056 to 0.103) for paternal BMI*; with evidence of heterogeneity between maternal-offspring and paternal-offspring associations (p=0.005). This was not robust in the unstandardised regression (β=0.056, 95% CI 0.044 to 0.067 for maternal BMI and β=0.039, 95% CI 0.025 to 0.053 for paternal BMI, p=0.093). Mixed results indicate that compared with paternal BMI, maternal BMI did not have a consistently stronger influence on offspring BMI in India.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".