Socioeconomic inequalities in height, leg length and trunk length among children aged 6.5 years and their parents from the Republic of Belarus: Evidence from the Promotion of Breastfeeding Intervention Trial (PROBIT)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lower socioeconomic position is associated with shorter stature, in particular shorter leg length, but the magnitude of these associations in non-Western countries has received little attention. AIM: To examine socioeconomic differentials in height, leg and trunk length in 6.5 year olds from the Republic of Belarus and compare these to differentials in parental height. METHODS: Multivariable linear regression was used to examine associations in a cohort of 13 889 children. RESULTS: Children from non-manual households were 1.0 cm (95% confidence interval: 0.7-1.3 cm) taller than those from manual households. Mothers and fathers from non-manual backgrounds were 0.7 cm (0.5-0.8) and 1.8 cm (1.6-2.0) taller than those from manual backgrounds, respectively. Associations with higher parental educational attainment were similar. The magnitudes of the associations of socioeconomic position with leg length were similar to those with trunk length. Adjusting for mid-parental height and number of older siblings attenuated associations markedly. CONCLUSIONS: In Belarus, similar socioeconomic differentials in height were observed in both children and their parents. Among children, height differentials were partly explained by mid-parental height and number of older siblings. Leg length was not a more sensitive indicator of childhood socioeconomic conditions than trunk length.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".