Genetic and Environmental Influences on Body Size in Early Childhood: A Twin Birth-Cohort Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genetic and environmental contributions to body size from birth to 5 years in a population-based twin cohort were studied. Sex differences in gene-environment etiology were also explored. Analyses used data from the Quebec Newborn Twin Study (QNTS), a population-based birth cohort of 672 twin pairs. The final sample consisted of 177 complete twin pairs. Heritability of weight was moderate at birth while common environmental factors accounted for almost half of the variance. Influence of family environment disappeared by 5 months and genetic effects were high (approximately 90%) for both sexes at 5 months and 5 years. Adjustment of weight for height yielded similar results as for weight alone. Slight but significant sex-limitation of genetic effects was observed at 5 months. Overall, genetic factors accounted for 40% of birthweight variance, with intrauterine environment influences explaining almost half. However, genetic factors accounted for most of the variance in weight. These results do not imply a lack of environmental effects on body weight, but rather a lack of: (1) environmental effects that are independent from genetic liability, and/or (2) a lack of significant environmental variation in the population (e.g., uniform nutritional habits) that leaves genetic differences between children to generate most of the variance in weight.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it