MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281790413 · doi:10.2337/db22-249-or

249-OR: Growth Trajectories of MiTy Kids' Offspring According to Intrauterine Growth Status

2022· article· en· W4281790413 on OpenAlexaffabout
J. JOHANNA SANCHEZ, Jill Hamilton, George Tomlinson, Elizabeth Asztalos, KELLIE MURPHY, Bernard Zinman, David Simmons, Andrea M. Haqq, IVAN G. FANTUS, LORRAINE LIPSCOMBE, Anthony Armson, JON F.R. BARRETT, LOIS E. DONOVAN, PAUL KARANICOLAS, YIDI JIANG, SIOBHAN TOBIN, KATHRYN MANGOFF, GAIL KLEIN, DENICE FEIG

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetes · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBirth, Development, and Health
Canadian institutionsThornhill Medical (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetforminMedicineOffspringIn uteroPlaceboBody mass indexSmall for gestational agePregnancyPopulationBirth weightWeight gainGestational ageObstetricsPediatricsInternal medicineEndocrinologyBody weightDiabetes mellitusFetusBiologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: In the MiTy trial [pregnant T2D randomized to metformin vs. placebo], infants exposed to metformin in-utero had a lower risk of large-for-gestational-age (LGA) but were at higher risk of small-for-gestational-age (SGA) . To date, there are limited data on the effect of in-utero exposure to metformin on infant/child growth in T2D, according to the intrauterine growth status. The MiTy Kids study followed the offspring of MiTy participants to 24 months of age to examine the effect of metformin exposure in-utero on child growth. Aim: Examine the weight and body mass index (BMI) trajectories of children of women with T2D, according to the intrauterine growth status [appropriate for gestational age (AGA) , LGA, and SGA] and metformin exposure. Methods: The study population included offspring of MiTy trial participants. Height and weight measurements were collected at 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months of age. Analysis of data was conducted using a fractional polynomial linear mixed effects approach to compare growth trajectories. Results: Of the 283 children who participated in MiTy Kids (46.3% female) , 194 children were AGA at birth (90 metformin and 1placebo) , 65 were LGA (29 metformin and 36 placebo) , and 24 were SGA (16 metformin and 8 placebo) . In children born AGA, both sexes in the metformin arm had a lower weight gain trajectory than those in the placebo group (p=0.008) . Treatment and sex did not have an effect on the growth trajectories of children born LGA. In SGA children, in both sexes, SGA children in the metformin group had a lower weight gain trajectory (p=<0.001) and BMI trajectory (p=0.042) than children in the placebo group, and achieved a lower weight than the WHO growth standard at 24 months. Conclusion: Metformin exposure in-utero was associated with lower weight gain trajectories and BMI trajectories in children of both sexes born SGA and lower weight gain trajectory in AGA children. Further follow-up will determine subsequent growth in these children. Disclosure J. Sanchez: None. J. Hamilton: Advisory Panel; Novo Nordisk Canada Inc. Research Support; Mead Johnson & Company, LLC. G. Tomlinson: None. E. Asztalos: None. K. Murphy: None. B. Zinman: Advisory Panel; Abbott Diabetes, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Eli Lilly and Company, Merck & Co., Inc., Novo Nordisk Canada Inc., Sanofi K.K. D. Simmons: Research Support; Abbott, Hitachi, Ltd., Novo Nordisk. Speaker's Bureau; Sanofi. Other Relationship; Elsevier. A. Haqq: None. I.G. Fantus: None. A. Armson: None. J.F.R. Barrett: None. L.E. Donovan: Other Relationship; Dexcom, Inc., Inner Analytics, Medtronic, Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. P. Karanicolas: Research Support; Baxter. Y. Jiang: None. S. Tobin: None. K. Mangoff: None. G. Klein: None. D. Feig: Advisory Panel; Novo Nordisk. Research Support; Apotex. Funding Canadian Institutes of Health Research

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiabetesSame topicBirth, Development, and HealthFrench-language works237,207