MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057687561 · doi:10.1159/000084740

Relationships between IGF-I and Weight Z Score, BMI, Tricipital Skin-Fold Thickness, Type of Feeding in Healthy Infants in the First 5 Months of Life

2005· article· en· W2057687561 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Francesco Savino, Giuliana Nanni, S Maccario, R Oggero, G. C. Mussa

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Nutrition and Metabolism · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGrowth Hormone and Insulin-like Growth Factors
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersOntario Institute for Regenerative Medicine
KeywordsInternal medicineMedicineBody mass indexEndocrinologyBody weightSkin foldObesityBirth weightInsulin-like growth factorGrowth factorReceptorBiologyPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: To determine the concentration of insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I) in exclusively breast-fed (BF) and formula-fed (FF) infants in the first 5 months of life and to study the relationship between the IGF-I level and Z score for weight, body mass index (BMI) and tricipital skin-fold thickness. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study in order to evaluate serum IGF-I in 97 age-matched healthy term infants: 50 FF and 47 BF. RESULTS: FF infants showed higher values of IGF-I (38.9 +/- 12 ng/ml) when compared to BF infants (26.7 +/- 11.6 ng/ml; p < 0.05). A positive correlation was found between IGF-I values and Z score for weight (p < 0.001), BMI (p = 0.014), tricipital skin-fold thickness (p = 0.043) and age (p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: These results show that the IGF-I serum concentration is higher in FF infants. The observed association between IGF-I and Z score for weight, BMI, tricipital skin-fold thickness confirms the effect of different infant feeding on body size.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.404

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations15
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Nutrition and MetabolismSame topicGrowth Hormone and Insulin-like Growth FactorsFrench-language works237,207