Breastfeeding and childhood obesity: A 12‐country study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study aimed to examine the association between breastfeeding and childhood obesity. A multinational cross‐sectional study of 4,740 children aged 9–11 years was conducted from 12 countries. Infant breastfeeding was recalled by parents or legal guardians. Height, weight, waist circumference, and body fat were obtained using standardized methods. The overall prevalence of obesity, central obesity, and high body fat were 12.3%, 9.9%, and 8.1%, respectively. After adjustment for maternal age at delivery, body mass index (BMI), highest maternal education, history of gestational diabetes, gestational age, and child's age, sex, birth weight, unhealthy diet pattern scores, moderate‐to‐vigorous physical activity, sleeping, and sedentary time, exclusive breastfeeding was associated with lower odds of obesity (odds ratio [OR] 0.76, 95% confidence interval, CI [0.57, 1.00]) and high body fat (OR 0.60, 95% CI [0.43, 0.84]) compared with exclusive formula feeding. The multivariable‐adjusted ORs based on different breastfeeding durations (none, 1–6, 6–12, and > 12 months) were 1.00, 0.74, 0.70, and 0.60 for obesity (Ptrend = .020) and 1.00, 0.64, 047, and 0.64 for high body fat (Ptrend = .012), respectively. These associations were no longer significant after adjustment for maternal BMI. Breastfeeding may be a protective factor for obesity and high body fat in 9‐ to 11‐year‐old children from 12 countries.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".