Canalization of growth between 2 and 5 years of age in apparently healthy children with short stature at age 2 years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction. Newborn size is associated with intrauterine conditions. Genetic potential is expressed later; the canalization of growth is typically described up to 24 months of age. Objective. To describe the canalization of growth between 2 and 5 years of age in apparently healthy children with short stature at age 2 years. Population and methods. Retrospective, cohort study. Children seen at a community teaching hospital between 2003 and 2019, who had a Z-score for height below -2 SDs for age and sex at age 2 years were included. Infants born preterm, with a low birth weight, and chronic conditions were excluded. Growth patterns were assessed. Canalization was defined as reaching a normal stature for the general population. Results. Sixty-four children were included; 37 (58%) showed canalization of growth at 5 years old (20 at 3 years, 8 at 4 years, and 9 at 5 years). The growth rate at 3 and 5 years of age was significantly higher among those who showed canalization compared to those who did not; a similar trend was observed at 4 years of age. Among 27 children with short stature at 5 years of age, 25 had at least 1 annual growth velocity below the 25th centile. Conclusions. Most apparently healthy children with short stature at 2 years old reached a normal stature at 5 years old. The annual growth velocity allows to detect children at risk of not showing canalization.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".