Nutritional risk in early childhood and parent-reported school concerns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To determine if nutritional risk in early childhood is associated with parent-reported school concerns. Design: A prospective cohort study conducted through the TARGet Kids! primary care research network (2011-2018). Nutritional risk was measured between 18 months and 5 years of age using validated parent-completed NutriSTEP® questionnaires with eating behaviour and dietary intake subscores (0 = lowest and 68 = highest total nutritional risk score). Parent-reported school concerns were measured at school age (4-10 years of age) and included: speech and language; learning; attention; behaviour; social relationships; physical coordination; fine motor coordination and self-help skills and independence. The primary outcome was any parent-reported school concerns, and individual school concerns were used as secondary outcomes. Multiple logistic regression models were conducted adjusting for clinically relevant confounders to assess the relationship between nutritional risk and school concerns. Setting: Toronto, Canada. Participants: Children aged 18 months to 10 years. Results: The study included 3655 children, 52 % were male, mean NutriSTEP® score was 14·4 (sd 6·4). Each 1 sd increase in NutriSTEP® total score was associated with a 1·18 times increased odds of school concerns (adj OR: 1·18, 95 % CI 1·07, 1·28, P = 0·0004), and high nutritional risk was associated with a 1·42 times increased odds of school concerns (adj OR: 1·42, 95 % CI 1·13, 1·78, P = 0·002). Conclusions: Nutritional risk in early childhood was associated with school concerns. Nutritional interventions in early childhood may reveal opportunities to enhance school 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 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) | 0.003 | 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".