Risk of obesity at 4 to 6 years of age among overweight or obese 18-month-olds: community-based cohort study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether high weight for length at the 18-month well-baby visit is predictive of overweight or obese body mass index (BMI) at the 4- to 6-year well-child visit. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using objective electronic medical record measurements. SETTING: Eighteen family practices forming a community family health organization in Peterborough, Ont. PARTICIPANTS: All children from the family health organization practices with at least 1 set of weight and length or height measurements at age 17 to 19 months and age 4 to 6 years (N=126). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Relative risk (RR) of overweight BMI and RR of obese BMI at 4 to 6 years of age for normal versus overweight or obese 18-month-olds. RESULTS: Children who were either overweight or obese at their 18-month visits (n=37) were more than twice as likely to be obese at age 4 to 6 years than children who had healthy weights at 18 months were (n=89; RR=2.71, 95% CI 1.13 to 6.47). The subgroup of obese 18-month-olds (n=13) were at more than 3 times the risk of being obese at age 4 to 6 years than their healthy-weight-for-length counterparts (RR=3.42, 95% CI 1.20 to 9.78). Thirty-one percent of obese 18-month-olds were obese at 4 to 6 years and a further 31% were overweight. CONCLUSION: High weight for length at 18 months substantially increased a child's risk of being overweight or obese at 4 to 6 years of age. Most overweight and obese 18-month-olds in this study did not achieve healthy BMIs by 4 to 6 years of age. A brief glance at the 18-month weight-for-length chart can easily help identify these high-risk toddlers.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".