Birth Weight and Lung Function in Adulthood: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Rationale There is evidence suggesting that birth weight may influence lung function in adulthood, but it is unclear whether it might differentially affect restrictive (FVC) and obstructive (FEV1/FVC) patterns. Objectives To summarize evidence available on the association of birth weight, weight at 1 year, and weight gain in the first year of life with FVC and FEV1/FVC in adulthood. Methods We performed a systematic review of the literature by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science through January 2015. Data were combined using inverse-variance weighted meta-analysis with random effects models and between-study heterogeneity evaluated. We conducted a priori subgroup or sensitivity analyses by age, country wealth, ethnicity, sex, and smoking. We evaluated risk of bias using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale and reporting bias using funnel plots. Results Eighteen articles were included in the review and 13 in the meta-analyses. Most studies were from high-income countries, and all had a low risk of bias. We found strong evidence of an association of birth weight with adult FVC, a 59.4 ml higher FVC in adulthood per kilogram increase in birth weight (95% confidence interval, 43.3–75.5), with no evidence of heterogeneity. Evidence of an association of birth weight with FEV1/FVC was weaker and showed some inconsistency across studies. Only one study investigated weight at 1 year, and another one reported weight gain in the first year. Conclusions Our meta-analyses show strong and consistent evidence of an association of birth weight with adult FVC, a measure of restrictive impairment, with much weaker evidence for airflow obstruction.
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 | 0.017 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".