MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Whole body lean mass at birth significantly tracks to 12 and 36 months of age

2011· article· en· W3173469580 on OpenAlexafffund
Tom J. Hazell, Sina Gallo, Catherine A. Vanstone, Celia Rodd, Hope A. Weiler

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicInfant Nutrition and Health
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversitySte. Anne's Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsLean body massBirth weightMedicineGestational ageAnimal scienceComposition (language)Body weightFat massInternal medicineEndocrinologyBiologyPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Childhood is a critical period of musculoskeletal development. Body composition in childhood is predicted by birth weight, but this relationship has not been studied using neonatal body composition in healthy term born infants of appropriate weight for gestational age. The objective of this study was to determine which indices of body composition track best from birth. Twenty‐five children (16 male, 9 female) had weight (wt) and whole body composition measured using dual‐energy x‐ray absorptiometry (Hologic 4500A Discovery Series with infant and pediatric software, Bedford, MA, USA) at 1, 12, and 36 mo of age. Correlation analyses were performed for indices of body composition at 1 mo compared to 12 and 36 mo and significance set at p<0.05. Body wt (g) at 1 mo was related to wt at 12 mo (r=0.61; P<0.001) and 36 mo (r=0.39; P<0.01); wt at 12 mo was also related to wt at 36 mo (r=0.77; P<0.001). Whole body lean mass (LM; g) at 1 mo of age was related to wt (r=0.63; P<0.001) and LM (r=0.51; P<0.01) at 12 mo plus wt (r=0.48; P<0.01) and LM (r=0.50; P<0.001) at 36 mo. At 12 mo, LM related with wt (r=0.63; P<0.05), LM (r=0.73; P<0.001) and % fat (r=−0.50; P<0.05) at 36 mo. Fat mass at 1 mo was not related to subsequent measures, however values at 12 and 36 mo were related (r=0.48; P<0.05). These results suggest lean muscle mass established by 1 mo of age is a consistent indicator of future body composition indices during early development. Funded by CIHR.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicInfant Nutrition and Health→French-language works237,207→