Social-emotional functioning and dietary intake among children born with a very low birth weight
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Very low birth weight (VLBW, <1500 g) infants are at an elevated risk of neurodevelopmental disorders, later obesity and cardiometabolic disease; if and how neurodevelopmental disorders impact chronic disease risk is poorly understood. The most common neurodevelopmental disorders experienced by VLBW children are those of social-emotional functioning. We compared dietary patterns and body composition between VLBW children with poor vs. typical social-emotional functioning using linear mixed models adjusted for sex, gestational age, cognitive impairment, parental education, and body mass index (BMI). VLBW children ( n=158) attending the Donor Milk for Improved Neurodevelopmental Outcomes trial with 5.5-year follow-up participated. Poor social-emotional functioning was based on standardized parent-rated questionnaires and/or parent-reported physician diagnosis of autism spectrum or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorders. Most children had diets categorized as “needs improvement” (67%) or “poor” (27%) and 29% of children exhibited poor social-emotional functioning. Poor social-emotional functioning was positively associated with 100% fruit juice (β=0.3 cup equivalents/day; 95% CI 0.1, 0.5) and energy intake (β=118.1 kcal/day; 95% CI 0.9, 235.2). Children with poor social-emotional functioning were more likely to have a limited food repertoire ( p=0.02), but less likely to exceed dietary fat recommendations ( p=0.04). No differences in overall diet quality or body composition were observed. Diet counselling and research are essential to improving the nutrition of VLBW children to mitigate chronic disease risk. Trial registration — Optimizing Mothers’ Milk for Preterm Infants Program of Research: Study 1 – Impact of Donor Milk at Kindergarten, NCT02759809, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02759809 . Novelty: Overall diet quality and body composition did not differ between VLBW children with poor vs. typical social-emotional functioning. Most had diets “needing improvement” or “poor” according to the Healthy Eating Index-2010. Diet counselling may help mitigate chronic disease risk in this vulnerable population.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".