Association between low birth weight and impaired glucose tolerance in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background A potential association between the onset of diabetes and normal birth weight (NBW) has been discovered. Diverse conclusions and study methodologies exist regarding the connection between low birth weight (LBW) and impaired glucose tolerance in children, underscoring the need for further robust research. Our institution is embarking on this study to thoroughly examine the association between LBW and impaired glucose tolerance in children. Methods We conducted searches on Cochrane Library, ScienceDirect, EMBASE, PubMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Biomedical Literature data (CBM) online database, VIP full-text Database, and Wanfang Database to identify correlation analyses or case-control studies investigating the relationship between LBW and abnormal glucose tolerance in children. The search spanned from January 2010 to September 2023. The quality of observational studies was evaluated using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) tool. Data synthesis was performed using the statistical software RevMan 5.3 for meta-analysis. Results Based on the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, we finally included 10 clinical control studies consisting of a total of 2971 cases. There wasn’t considerably change in blood sugar levels among LBW, NBW and high birth weight (HBW) infants (P > 0.05). There was no significant difference in insulin levels between LBW infants and NBW infants (P > 0.05). The HOMA-IR of LBW infants was considerably higher than that of NBW infants (P < 0.05). The risk of abnormal glucose tolerance in LBW infants was 0.42 times higher than that in NBW and HBW infants [Fisher's Z = 0.42, 95% CI = (0.09, 0.75), P = 0.01]. Conclusion LBW is associated with an increased risk of abnormal glucose tolerance, as indicated by elevated HOMA-IR level in LBW infants compared to NBW and HBW pediatric population. Further research is needed to confirm and expand upon these findings to better understand the complex relationship between LBW and impaired glucose tolerance in 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 | 0.019 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".