Maternal restrictive feeding and eating in the absence of hunger among toddlers: a cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Restrictive feeding by parents has been associated with greater eating in the absence of hunger (EAH) among children, a risk factor for obesity. However, few studies have examined the association between restrictive feeding and EAH longitudinally, raising questions regarding the direction of associations between restrictive feeding and child EAH. Our objective was to examine the bidirectional prospective associations between restrictive feeding and EAH among toddlers. METHODS: Low-income mother-child dyads (n = 229) participated when children were 21, 27, and 33 months old. Restriction with regard to food amount and food quality were measured with the Infant Feeding Styles Questionnaire. EAH was measured as kilocalories of food children consumed after a satiating meal. A cross-lagged analysis adjusting for child sex and weight-for-length z-score was used to simultaneously test cross-sectional and bidirectional prospective associations between each type of restriction and children's EAH. RESULTS: At 21 months, mothers of children with greater EAH reported higher restriction with regard to food amount (b = 0.17, p < .05). Restriction with regard to food amount at age 21 months was inversely associated with EAH at 27 months (b = -0.20, p < .05). Restriction with regard to food amount at 27 months was not associated with EAH at 33 months and restriction with regard to food quality was not associated with EAH. EAH did not prospectively predict maternal restriction. CONCLUSIONS: Neither restriction with regard to food amount nor food quality increased risk for EAH among toddlers. Current US clinical practice recommendations for parents to avoid restrictive feeding, and the potential utility of restrictive feeding with regard to food amount in early toddlerhood, deserve further consideration.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".