Bibliographic record
Abstract
Imprinted genes mediate fetal and childhood growth and development, and early growth patterns drive fetal programming effects. However, predictions and evidence from the kinship theory of imprinting have yet to be directly integrated with data on fetal programming and risks of metabolic disease. I first define paternal-gene and maternal-gene optima with regard to early human growth and development. Next, I review salient evidence with regard to imprinted gene effects on birth weight, body composition, trajectories of feeding and growth, and timing of developmental stages, to evaluate why and how imprinted gene expression influences risks of metabolic disease in later life. I find that metabolic disease risks derive primarily from maternal gene biases that lead to reduced placental efficacy, low birth weight, low relative muscle mass, high relative white fat, increased abdominal adiposity, reduced pancreatic β-cell mass that promotes insulin resistance, reduced appetite and infant sucking efficacy, catch-up fat deposition from family foods after weaning, and early puberty. Paternal gene biases, by contrast, may contribute to metabolic disease via lower rates of brown fat thermiogenesis, and through favoring more rapid postnatal catch-up growth after intrauterine growth restriction from environmental causes. These disease risks can be alleviated through dietary and pharmacological alterations that selectively target imprinted gene expression and relevant metabolic pathways. The kinship theory of imprinting, and mother-offspring conflict more generally, provide a clear predictive framework for guiding future research on fetal programming and metabolic disease.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".