Subcutaneous fat accumulation in early infancy is more strongly associated with motor development and delay than muscle growth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Physical growth in neurologically healthy preterm infants affects motor development. This study investigated the separate relationships between muscle and fat in infancy and later motor development and physical growth. METHODS: Muscle thickness and subcutaneous fat thickness of the anterior thigh were measured using ultrasound images obtained from neurologically healthy preterm infants at birth, 3, 6, 12 and 18 months' corrected age. We also obtained the Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory and Alberta Infant Motor Scale scores at 18 months' corrected age to assess motor ability and motor delay. RESULTS: Thirty preterm infants completed the study protocol. There was a significant positive correlation between motor ability and increments in subcutaneous fat thickness during the first 3 and 6 months' corrected age (r = 0.48 and 0.40, p < 0.05, respectively), but not between motor ability and muscle thickness growth in any of the periods. A secondary, logistic regression analysis showed that increments in subcutaneous fat thickness during the first 3 months were a protective factor for motor delay. CONCLUSION: Subcutaneous fat accumulation in early infancy is more strongly associated with motor development and delay than muscle growth.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".