Weight Status in the First 6 Months of Life and Obesity at 3 Years of Age
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The goal was to examine the associations of weight-for-length at birth and at 6 months with obesity at 3 years of age. METHODS: We studied 559 children in Project Viva, an ongoing, prospective, cohort study of pregnant women and their children. We measured length and weight at birth, 6 months, and 3 years. Our main exposures were weight-for-length z score at birth adjusted for gestational age and weight-for-length z score at 6 months adjusted for weight-for-length z score at birth. We used multivariate regression analyses to predict the independent effects of birth weight-for-length z score and, separately, 6-month weight-for-length z score on BMI z score, the sum of subscapular and triceps skinfold thicknesses, and obesity (BMI for age and gender of > or =95th percentile) at age 3. RESULTS: Mean weights at birth, 6 months, and 3 years were 3.55, 8.15, and 15.67 kg, respectively. Corresponding lengths were 49.9, 66.9, and 97.4 cm. At 3 years, 48 children (9%) were obese. After adjustment for confounding variables and birth weight-for-length z score, each increment in 6-month weight-for-length z score was associated with higher BMI z scores, higher sums of subscapular and triceps skinfold thicknesses, and increased odds of obesity at age 3. The predicted obesity prevalence among children in the highest quartiles of both birth and 6-month weight-for-length z scores was 40%, compared with 1% for children in the lowest quartiles of both. Whereas birth weight-for-length z scores were associated with higher BMI z scores, the magnitude of effect was smaller than that of weight-for-length z scores at 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: More-rapid increases in weight for length in the first 6 months of life were associated with sharply increased risk of obesity at 3 years of age. Changes in weight status in infancy may influence risk of later obesity more than weight status at birth.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".