10 The association between underweight and iron status in early childhood: cross-sectional and prospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) identifies poor growth as a risk factor for iron deficiency (ID). There is limited research to provide evidence of this association. Objectives To examine the association between underweight and ID in early childhood. Design/Methods We enrolled healthy, young children from primary care practices in Toronto, Canada, and used both a cross-sectional and prospective study design. Underweight was defined as a body mass index z-score (zBMI) <-2. In the cross-sectional cohort, children 12-29 months had concurrent measurement of zBMI and serum ferritin. In the prospective cohort, children 6-14 months had measurement of zBMI and at 15-29 months had measurement of serum ferritin. Multivariable regression models examined serum ferritin as a continuous variable (linear models) and categorical variable with ID defined as <12 µg/L (logistic model), adjusted for pre-specified covariates. Results For the cross-sectional cohort (n=1953), the mean age was 18.3 (SD 5.0) months, 51 (2.4%) were underweight, and 269 (13.8%) had ID. There was no association between underweight and serum ferritin (change in median serum ferritin 2.01 µg/L, 95% CI -2.22, 7.01, P=0.37) or underweight and ID (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.43, 2.21, P= 0.95). In contrast, there was a strong negative association between overweight and serum ferritin (change in median serum ferritin -4.19 µg/L, 95% CI -6.93, -1.04, P=0.01), and a positive association between obesity and ID (OR 3.35, 95% CI 1.10, 10.25, P=0.03). For the prospective cohort (n=672), the mean age at outcome was 21.1 (SD 3.5) months, 34 (5.1%) were underweight, and 104 (15.5%) had ID. There was no association between underweight and serum ferritin or underweight and ID. Conclusion Using both a cross-sectional and prospective study design, we found no association between underweight and ID in young children 1 to 2 years of age. In contrast, we found a strong association between overweight/obesity and ID. For risk stratification and targeted screening, overweight/obesity may be more important than underweight as a risk factor for ID in young children.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".