Genetic and Environmental Influences on Body Size in Early Childhood: A Twin Birth-Cohort Study
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".