A Novel method for the identification and quantification of weight faltering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We describe a new method for identifying and quantifying the magnitude and rate of short-term weight faltering episodes, and assess how (a) these episodes relate to broader growth outcomes, and (b) different data collection intervals influence the quantification of weight faltering. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We apply this method to longitudinal growth data collected every other day across the first year of life in Gambian infants (n = 124, males = 65, females = 59). Weight faltering episodes are identified from velocity peaks and troughs. Rate of weight loss and regain, maximum weight loss, and duration of each episode were calculated. We systematically reduced our dataset to mimic various potential measurement intervals, to assess how these intervals affect the ability to derive information about short-term weight faltering episodes. We fit linear models to test whether metrics associated with growth faltering were associated with growth outcomes at 1 year, and generalized additive mixed models to determine whether different collection intervals influence episode identification and metrics. RESULTS: Three hundred weight faltering episodes from 119 individuals were identified. The number and magnitude of episodes negatively impacted growth outcomes at 1 year. As data collection interval increases, weight faltering episodes are missed and the duration of episodes is overestimated, resulting in the rate of weight loss and regain being underestimated. CONCLUSIONS: This method identifies and quantifies short-term weight faltering episodes, that are in turn negatively associated with growth outcomes. This approach offers a tool for investigators interested in understanding how short-term weight faltering relates to longer-term outcomes.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Bench or experimental | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Methods About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Bench or experimental | low |
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".