Assessment of Canadian Cree infants' birth size using the WHO Child Growth Standards
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The WHO Child Growth Standards (CGS) which were recently adopted by the Canadian Pediatric Society were used to assess the relative size of Cree newborns. METHODS: Birth weight, length, and head circumference, and growth indices of 2,127 Cree newborns were compared with the CGS. Maternal characteristics of pregnancy and infant birth outcomes were recorded and stratified by birth weight category. RESULTS: Among Cree newborns, 2.4% were low birth weight (LBW) (<2,500 g) and 36.5% were high birth weight (≥4,000 g). The median birth weight (g) for Cree male (4,030) and female (3,900) term newborns was higher than for male (3,346) and female (3,232) newborns of the CGS. Fewer than 1.5% of Cree infants had z-scores <-2SD from the WHO CGS median for BMI-for-age, length-for-age, weight-for-age, or head circumference-for-age whereas 4.6, 7.8, and 23.4% percent had z-scores >+2SD from the WHO CGS median for weight-for-length-for-age, BMI-for-age and head circumference-for-age, respectively. The majority (53.4%) of pregnancies was complicated by obesity and 10.3% were complicated by gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). Infants weighing 4,000-4,499 g had a comparable prevalence of operative delivery (15.4%) as infants weighing 2,500-3,999 g (13.7%). Infants weighing ≥4,500 g had the highest prevalence of birth injuries (14.0%) and being born to women whose pregnancies were complicated by GDM (20%). CONCLUSIONS: Cree newborns were larger than newborns of the CGS. The appropriateness for Cree infants of defining low and high birth weight from the WHO CGS is uncertain and may lead to inaccurate prognosis of postnatal health.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".