Associations of Early Parental Concerns and Feeding Behaviors with Child’s Diet Quality through Mid-Childhood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parental feeding practices have been associated with children’s dietary intakes, yet the directionality of these associations remains unclear. Among 1172 mother-child pairs from Project Viva, we aimed to examine associations of parental concerns and feeding behaviors at 2 years (behaviors dichotomized as yes vs. no), with diet quality (Youth Healthy Eating Index; YHEI) in early (mean 3.2, SD 0.3 years; n = 1076) and mid-childhood (mean 7.8, SD 0.7 years; n = 993). We used multivariable linear regression models adjusted for sociodemographic characteristics, parental body mass index (BMI), maternal diet quality in pregnancy, and child’s BMI z-score and diet quality at 2 years. Early parental concerns about their child becoming overweight (15%) was associated with lower YHEI (β −1.54 points; 95%CI −2.75, −0.33; fully adjusted model) in early childhood. Early parental concerns about their child becoming underweight (7%) was associated with lower YHEI (−2.19 points; −4.31, −0.07) in early childhood, but the association was attenuated after adjustment for child’s BMI z-score and diet quality at 2 years. We did not find associations of parental restrictive feeding (8%) and parental pressure to eat (47%) with child’s YHEI through mid-childhood. In conclusion, we found no evidence that early parental concerns and feeding behaviors independently contribute to child’s diet quality through childhood.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".