Sleep and physical growth in infants during the first 6 months
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to explore the relationships between infant sleep patterns and infant physical growth (weight for length ratio) using both objective and subjective sleep measures. Ninety-six first-born, healthy 6-month-old infants and their parents participated in the study. Infant sleep was assessed by actigraphy for four consecutive nights and by the Brief Infant Sleep Questionnaire (BISQ). In addition, parents were asked to complete background and developmental questionnaires. Questions about feeding methods were included in the developmental questionnaire. Infants' weight and length were assessed during a standard checkup at the infant-care clinic when the infants were 6 months old. Significant correlations were found between infant sleep and growth after controlling for potential infant and family confounding factors. Actigraphic sleep percentage and reported sleep duration were correlated negatively with the weight-to-length ratio measures. Sex-related differences in the associations between sleep and physical growth were found. Breast feeding at night was correlated with a more fragmented sleep, but not with physical growth. These findings suggest that sleep is related significantly to physical growth as early as in the first months of life. The study supports increasing evidence from recent studies demonstrating a link between short sleep duration and weight gain and obesity in young children.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".