Factors associated with head circumference and indices of cognitive development in early childhood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While head circumference (HC) has been related to intracranial volume and brain size, its association with cognitive function remains unclear. We sought to understand the relationship among various biological and socioeconomic risk factors, HC and cognitive development. METHODS: We analysed data across resource-poor settings in Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Peru, South Africa and Tanzania from the Etiology, Risk Factors and Interactions of Enteric Infections and Malnutrition and the Consequences for Child Health and Development longitudinal birth cohort study. Participating children were enrolled and followed up between 2009 and 2014. A final sample of 1210 children aged 0-24 months were included in the analyses. The main outcomes were HC for age Z-score and cognitive, gross motor and language scores from Bayley Scales of Infant Development-III tests. Length, weight and HC were measured monthly, and cognitive tests were administered at 6, 15 and 24 months of age. To disentangle the associations between risk factors and HC from linear growth and to distinguish the direct and indirect effects of these risk factors on cognitive function, we conducted mediation analysis using longitudinal models to account for all data measured during follow-up. RESULTS: Average HC-for-age Z-score (HCAZ) was -0.54 (95% CI -0.47 to -0.62) near birth and -1.01 (95% CI -0.94 to -1.08) at 24 months. Children with higher enrolment weight (p<0.0001), higher socioeconomic score (p=0.00037) and taller mothers (p=0.00084) had higher HCAZ at all ages, while enteropathogen infection (p=0.013) and more febrile episodes (p=0.013) were associated with lower HCAZ. The associations between HCAZ and enrolment weight-for-age, maternal height, socioeconomic status or pathogen burden were partly mediated through their associations with length-for-age. HCAZ showed no association with cognitive, gross motor or language skills at 6, 15 and 24 months of age. CONCLUSIONS: The main risk factors associated with HC are similar to those associated with body length, and HC is not related to cognitive function.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".