MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2599817023 · doi:10.1136/ebmed-2017-110672

Caesarean section is associated with offspring obesity in childhood and young adulthood

2017· letter· en· W2599817023 on OpenAlexaff
Stefan Kuhle, Christy Woolcott

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Medicine · 2017
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBirth, Development, and Health
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityIzaak Walton Killam Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOffspringSection (typography)Caesarean sectionObesityEarly adulthoodChildhood obesityMedicineYoung adultDevelopmental psychologyPsychologyPregnancyOverweightBiologyEndocrinologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Commentary on : Yuan C, Gaskins AJ, Blaine AI, et al . Association between cesarean birth and risk of obesity in offspring in childhood, adolescence, and early adulthood. JAMA Pediatr 2016;170:e162385. Since 2008, several observational studies have reported an association between caesarean section (CS) and offspring obesity. The underlying biological mechanism hypothesised to explain this association is that children born via CS lack exposure to the maternal vaginal flora, resulting in colonisation of the gut with flora that increase energy harvesting from food, thereby contributing to the development of obesity. Maternal pre-pregnancy weight confounds this association, as obesity in the mother is associated with CS and offspring obesity. Not all previous studies were able to adjust for maternal pre-pregnancy weight, but a recent systematic review showed that in studies that were able to adjust for this confounder, there remained a statistically significant …

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0130.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.007

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.252 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based MedicineSame topicBirth, Development, and HealthFrench-language works237,207