Metrics of early childhood growth in recent epidemiological research: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Metrics to quantify child growth vary across studies of the developmental origins of health and disease. We conducted a scoping review of child growth studies in which length/height, weight or body mass index (BMI) was measured at ≥ 2 time points. From a 10% random sample of eligible studies published between Jan 2010-Jun 2016, and all eligible studies from Oct 2015-June 2016, we classified growth metrics based on author-assigned labels (e.g., 'weight gain') and a 'content signature', a numeric code that summarized the metric's conceptual and statistical properties. Heterogeneity was assessed by the number of unique content signatures, and label-to-content concordance. In 122 studies, we found 40 unique metrics of childhood growth. The most common approach to quantifying growth in length, weight or BMI was the calculation of each child's change in z-score. Label-to-content discordance was common due to distinct content signatures carrying the same label, and because of instances in which the same content signature was assigned multiple different labels. In conclusion, the numerous distinct growth metrics and the lack of specificity in the application of metric labels challenge the integration of data and inferences from studies investigating the determinants or consequences of variations in childhood growth.
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 | 0.042 | 0.176 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.036 | 0.035 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".