The relatively small contribution of birth weight to blood pressure at age 49–51 years in the Newcastle Thousand Families Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Whereas a large number of previous studies suggest an association between birth weight and later blood pressure, others do not. Controversy surrounds the relative importance of these associations, in particular in relation to more modifiable factors in later life. The aim of this study was to investigate the relative contributions of a range of factors from across life to variations in SBP and DBP in the Newcastle Thousand Families Study. METHODS AND RESULTS: Detailed information was collected prospectively during childhood, including birth weight, duration breast fed and socioeconomic conditions. At age 49-51 years, 574 study members returned self-completion questionnaires and 412 underwent clinical examination, including measurement of DBP and SBP. These data were analysed using linear regression and path analyses. After adjustment for all other significant variables, decreased birth weight, standardized for sex and gestational age (P = 0.035), increased BMI (P < 0.001) and being male (P = 0.034) were independently associated with raised SBP and DBP. Social class at birth (P = 0.044) was also independently associated with DBP. BMI was found to be the most important predictor, with a small relative contribution of standardized birth weight. CONCLUSION: Adult blood pressure is influenced by numerous factors, acting both directly and indirectly during an individual's lifetime. Inverse associations of standardized birth weight, although statistically significant, were of relatively small importance, with the majority of variation being explained by more modifiable factors in adulthood, in particular adult BMI.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".