Differences in growth of Canadian children compared to the WHO 2006 Child Growth Standards
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To evaluate if there are departures from the WHO Child Growth Standards (WHO-CGS) in postnatal growth of healthy 'Canadian' children in Ontario up to age 2 years, including by infant feeding and ethnicity. METHODS: We included data on 9964 healthy, singleton children born in Ontario, Canada. Smoothed weight, length and body mass index (BMI) percentile curves were generated using quantile regression for the Canadian cohort from birth to age 2 years. Differences in percentile values were calculated comparing Canadian children vs. the WHO-CGS. RESULTS: Canadian children under age 2 years were longer than the WHO-CGS at the 10th (0.8 cm), 50th (1.3 cm) and 90th (1.9 cm) percentiles. Canadian children incrementally surpassed the WHO-CGS in weight after age 6 months, and in BMI after 9 months. By age 2 years, the 50th percentile weight of Canadian males was 823 g (95% confidence interval (CI) 680, 965) higher than the WHO-CGS 50th percentile. Weight differences were seen regardless of feeding practice, and were greatest among children of mothers born in Canada and Europe/Western nations, and least for those of East Asian/Pacific or South Asian heritage. Among Canadian breastfed males, 18% (95% CI 16, 19) of newborns and 26% (95% CI 20, 33) toddlers aged 2 years were classified by WHO-CGS as weighing >90th percentile - much higher than the expected rate of 10%. Similarities were seen for differences in BMI. CONCLUSIONS: Healthy Canadian infants/toddlers are longer and heavier than the WHO-CGS norms. Explanations for these discrepancies require further elucidation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".