Timing of Complementary Feeding Introduction and Adiposity Throughout Childhood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To examine associations of the timing of complementary feeding (CF) introduction with adiposity throughout childhood. METHODS: We studied 1013 children from Project Viva. Our exposure was CF introduction, categorized as <4 months (19%), 4 to <6 months (68%; reference group), and ≥6 months of age (14%). Our outcomes included adiposity measures in midchildhood (mean: 7.9 years; SD 0.8; n = 896) and early adolescence (mean: 13.2 years; SD 0.9; n = 850). We used linear regression models adjusted for potential confounders and ran separate models for infants who were breastfed at least partly for ≥4 months (categorized as breastfed; 69%) and infants who were never breastfed or stopped breastfeeding at <4 months (categorized as formula fed; 31%). RESULTS: CF initiated at <4 months was associated with higher adiposity in midchildhood in breastfed children; associations persisted into adolescence for waist circumference, truncal fat mass, and the sum of subscapular and triceps skinfolds (eg, waist circumference: confounder-adjusted β 2.97 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 5.47] cm). The effect estimates were larger in formula-fed children, with more associations persisting into adolescence (eg, waist circumference: adjusted β 3.42 [95% CI 0.12 to 6.71] cm). CF initiated at ≥6 months was associated with a higher subscapular/triceps skinfold ratio in midchildhood and adolescence (adjusted β 0.13 [95% CI 0.02 to 0.25]) in formula-fed children. CONCLUSIONS: We found associations of early CF introduction with higher adiposity measurements in breastfed and formula-fed children and associations of late introduction of CF with higher adiposity in formula-fed children.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".