Birth Weight and Cognitive Ability in Childhood Among Siblings and Nonsiblings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this work was to examine whether the positive association between birth weight and childhood cognitive ability is seen within siblings from the same family, as well as between nonsiblings, and to determine whether these associations vary with age. METHODS: We compared the association of birth weight with cognitive ability measured at ages 5 to 6, 7 to 9, and 11 to 12 years among a total of 5402 children from different families with that among 2236 to 3083 sibships from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth 1979-Children. RESULTS: In the whole cohort, there were positive associations between birth weight and cognitive ability at all ages, with the association increasing with age from a 0.81-point increase at ages 5 to 6 years to 1.30 and 1.44 points at ages 7 to 9 and 11 to 12 years, respectively, per 1 SD of gestational age- and gender-adjusted birth weight z score. With adjustment for covariates, there was marked attenuation of these associations. Mean differences were 0.28 points in children aged 5 to 6 years, 0.67 points in those aged 7 to 9 years, and 0.52 points in those aged 11 to 12 years after adjusting for child's gender, race or ethnicity, year of birth, and age at test; maternal age, height, parity, education, smoking during pregnancy, and cognitive ability; and household income. Our family-based analyses that separated within- and between-family effects found that the between-family associations were much stronger than the within-family associations. However, adjustment for potential confounders attenuated the between-family associations, and there was no evidence for a difference in association comparing the between- and within-family associations. CONCLUSIONS: In these data, the positive association between birth weight and childhood cognitive ability at ages 5 to 12 years is explained largely by family characteristics rather than a specific intrauterine effect.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".