Early childhood growth trajectory and later cognitive ability: evidence from a large prospective birth cohort of healthy term-born children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Most studies of associations between child growth and cognitive ability were based on size at one or two ages and a single measure of cognition. We aimed to characterize different aspects of early growth and their associations with cognitive outcomes in childhood through adolescence. METHODS: In a sample of 12 368 Belarusian children born at term, we examined associations of length/height and weight trajectories over the first 6.5 years of life with cognitive ability at 6.5 and 16 years and its change over time. We estimated growth trajectories using two random-effects models-the SuperImposition by Translation and Rotation to model overall patterns of growth and the Jenss-Bayley to distinguish growth in infancy from post infancy. Cognitive ability was measured using the Wechsler Abbreviated Scales of Intelligence at 6.5 years and the computerized NeuroTrax test at 16 years. RESULTS: Higher length/height between birth and 6.5 years was associated with higher cognitive scores at 6.5 and 16 years {2.7 points [95% confidence interval (CI): 2.1, 3.2] and 2.5 points [95% CI: 1.9, 3.0], respectively, per standard deviation [SD] increase}. A 1-SD delay in the childhood height-growth spurt was negatively associated with cognitive scores [-2.4 (95% CI: -3.0, -1.8) at age 6.5; -2.2 (95% CI: -2.7, -1.6) at 16 years]. Birth size and post-infancy growth velocity were positively associated with cognitive scores at both ages. Height trajectories were not associated with the change in cognitive score. Similar results were observed for weight trajectories. CONCLUSIONS: Among term infants, the overall size, timing of the childhood growth spurt, size at birth and post-infancy growth velocity were all associated with cognitive ability at early-school age and adolescence.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".