Association between caesarean section and childhood obesity: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
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
Birth by caesarean section has been recently implicated in the aetiology of childhood obesity, but studies examining the association have varied with regard to their settings, designs, and adjustment for potential confounders. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the available evidence and to explore study characteristics as sources of heterogeneity. A search of Medline, EMBASE, and Web of Science identified 28 studies. Random effects meta-analysis was used to calculate pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Caesarean section had a RR of 1.34 (CI 1.18-1.51) for obesity in the child compared with vaginal birth. The RR was lower for studies that adjusted for maternal pre-pregnancy weight than for studies that did not (1.29, CI 1.16-1.44 vs. 1.55, CI 1.11-2.17). Studies that examined multiple early life factors reported lower RRs than studies that specifically examined caesarean section (1.39, CI 1.23-1.57 vs. 1.23, CI 0.97-1.56). Effect estimates did not vary by child's age at obesity assessment, study design or country income. Children born by caesarean section are at higher risk of developing obesity in childhood. Findings are limited by a moderate heterogeneity among studies and the potential for residual confounding and publication bias.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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