Birth Weight and the Risk of Cardiovascular Outcomes: A Report From the Large Population-Based UK Biobank Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Birth weight has been reported to be associated with the risk of incident cardiovascular disease (CVD); however, the relationship remains inconclusive. Here, we aimed to prospectively assess the associations between birth weight and CVD risk using the data from UK Biobank, a large-scale, prospective cohort study. Methods We included 270,297 participants who were free of CVD at baseline and reported their birth weight for analyses. The primary outcome was incident CVD. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for outcomes were calculated using Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for potential confounding variables. Results During a median follow-up of 8.07 years (IQR: 7.4–8.7 years), 10,719 incident CVD events were recorded. The HRs for low birth weight vs. normal birth weight (2.5–4.0 kg) were 1.23 (95% CI: 1.09–1.38) for risk of incident CVD, 1.52 (95% CI: 1.18–1.95) for stroke, 1.33 (95% CI: 1.07–1.64) for myocardial infarction, and 1.15 (95% CI: 1.01–1.32) for CHD. For the ones with low birth weight, the risk of CVD is reduced by 11% for every kilogram of birth weight gain. The association of low birth weight with CVD was stronger among those younger than 55 years (p = 0.001). No association between high birth weight and risk of cardiovascular outcomes was found. Conclusion Low birth weight was associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events. These findings highlight the longstanding consequence of low birth weight on cardiovascular system.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".