Delivery by caesarean section and offspring adiposity and cardio‐metabolic health at ages 6.5, 11.5 and 16 years: results from the <scp>PROBIT</scp> cohort in Belarus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Background Caesarean delivery has been associated with later adiposity, perhaps via early programming or perhaps because of residual confounding by maternal or birth characteristics. Objectives Examine associations of caesarean delivery with adiposity and cardio‐metabolic biomarkers. Methods Observational analysis of 15 069 children in the PROBIT cohort in Belarus. We examined measures of child anthropometry and blood pressure at 6.5, 11.5 and 16 years and fasting blood (11.5 years). Results Caesarean‐delivered children were slightly heavier at 6.5 (mean BMI 15.8 vs. 15.6 kg/m 2 ), 11.5 (18.4 vs. 18.2) and 16 years (21.5 vs. 21.3). After adjustment for prenatal characteristics including maternal third trimester BMI, however, we observed no association of caesarean versus vaginal delivery with child BMI (β 0.05 kg/m 2 ; 95%CI: −0.03, 0.14), sum of skinfolds (0.14 mm; −0.13, 0.42), waist circumference (−0.07 cm; −0.23, 0.10), obesity (OR 0.99; 0.76, 1.29), or systolic (−0.20 mmHg; −0.70, 0.30) or diastolic (−0.17 mmHg, −0.60, 0.26) blood pressure at 6.5 years; results were similar at 11.5 and 16 years. At 11.5 years, we observed a modest association of caesarean delivery with fasting insulin (0.33 mU/L; 0.00, 0.65). Conclusions Caesarean delivery had little or no association with adiposity or related cardio‐metabolic biomarkers in childhood. Adjustment for maternal BMI attenuated all outcome effect estimates.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".