World Health Organization growth standards: How do Canadian children measure up?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: World Health Organization (WHO) growth standards for children aged 0 to 5 years describe growth under optimal conditions and were adopted for use in Canada in 2012. We are seeking to validate these charts in a well-characterized, longitudinal cohort of healthy, Canadian youngsters, assess tracking over time, and evaluate the prognostic implications of early growth. METHODS: Data from 2,795 mother-infant dyads from the CHILD birth cohort were classified by feeding modality at 6 months as exclusively breastfed, partially breastfed, or formula-fed. WHO z-scores (z) were calculated at birth, 3 months, 1 year, and 3 years. Receiver operator characteristics (ROC) assessed the predictive performance of early weight (WT), weight-for-length (WfL), or body mass index (BMI) z-scores for overweight/obesity at 3 years. RESULTS: Compared to WHO standards, Canadian children at birth had lower median WfLz (-0.73) and BMIz (-0.29), with more positive scores by 3 years (WfLz=BMIz=0.58). At both 1 and 3 years, formula feeding was associated with higher scores than breastfeeding, even after regression adjustment for covariates. Head circumference z-score was typically positive at all times and regardless of feeding modality. At 1 year, ROC area under the curve was 0.79 for WTz, WfLz, and BMIz, and BMIz>0.88 identified children with increased risk of overweight/obesity (BMIz >2) at age 3 years (20.3% versus 3.0%, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to WHO growth charts, Canadian children at 3 years show an upward shift in BMIz and WfLz, particularly when formula-fed. Infant growth parameters may identify infants with increased risk of overweight/obesity at age 3 years; early recognition may allow targeting infants at higher risk.
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 | 0.011 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".