Influence of parental anthropometry and gestational weight gain on intrauterine growth and neonatal outcomes: Findings from the MAI cohort study in rural India
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Poor foetal growth and subsequent low birth weight are associated with an increased risk for disease later in life. Identifying parental factors that determine foetal growth are important to curbing intergenerational malnutrition, especially among disadvantaged populations in the global south where undernutrition rates are high. The objective of this study was to assess the relationships between parental biometry, intrauterine growth and neonatal outcomes, while factoring in socioeconomic status of historically disadvantaged households in rural India. Using data from the prospective longitudinal cohort, pregnant women from rural Pune, India (n = 134) were assessed between August 2020 and November 2022. Data on socio-demography, ultrasound measurements, parental and foetal anthropometry were collected. Multiple linear regression models were run to predict determinants of foetal intrauterine and neonatal growth (p value<0.05). The dependent variables were ultrasound measurements and neonatal biometry, and independent variables were gestational weight gain, parental and mid-parental height. Mean(±SD) maternal age, maternal height, paternal height and mid-parental height were 22.8±3.7 years, 153.6±5.5cm, 165.9±6.5cm and 159.1±8.7cm, respectively. Pre-pregnancy body mass index and gestational weight gain was 20.5±4.0 kg/m2 and 9.8±3.7kg respectively. Mid-parental height and gestational weight gain were strongly correlated with neonatal growth and foetal intrauterine growth (p<0.05); however, the correlation peaked at 28 weeks of gestation (p<0.05). Gestational weight gain (B = 28.7, p = 0.001) and mid-parental height (B = 14.3, p = 0.001) were identified as strong determinants of foetal-intrauterine growth and neonatal anthropometry at birth. Maternal height was found to influence length of male neonate (B = 0.18, p = 0.001), whereas, paternal height influenced length of the female neonate (B = 0.11, p = 0.01). Parental socio-economic status, biometry and maternal gestational weight gain influence growth of the child starting from the intrauterine period. Our study underlines the need for interventions during pre-pregnancy, as well as during pregnancy, for optimal weight gain and improved foetal and neonatal outcomes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".