The longitudinal effects of maternal parenting practices on children’s body mass index z-scores are lagged and differential
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The longitudinal relation between parenting practices and styles with children's body mass index z-scores (zBMI) is poorly understood. Previous studies suggest the relationship may be complex, but small samples and short follow-ups diminish the strength of the evidence. The objectives of this study were to investigate whether the relationship is bidirectional, time-varying, and lagged using data from a large, representative birth cohort of Quebec children. METHODS: Data were from the Québec Longitudinal Study of Child Development (QLSCD), a prospective birth cohort (n = 1,602). The mothers' interactions with their children (at ages 6, 8, 10, and 12 years) were utilized in factor analysis to identify three latent parenting practices (disciplinarian, lenient, and responsive). The parenting practices were analyzed with K-means clustering to identify the parenting styles. The temporal and bidirectional relationships were assessed in a cross-lagged path analysis using a structural equation modelling framework. Mixed models controlling for age, sex, income, mother's education, and whether the participant was first-born were estimated. Missing data were handled with full information maximum likelihood. RESULTS: From the linear mixed models, greater lenient and responsive parenting practices were associated with higher zBMI (B = 0.03, p < 0.05) two years later. However, there was no evidence that the relationship was bidirectional nor that parenting style was predictive of children's zBMI. CONCLUSION: While mothers' parenting practices were unaffected by their children's zBMI, parental practices were predictive of future zBMI among their prepubertal children. More in-depth exploration of parenting practices and their potential impact on pediatric weight is needed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".