Genetic analysis of selection bias in a natural experiment: investigating in utero famine effects on elevated body mass index in the Dutch hunger winter families study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Natural-experiment designs that compare survivors of in-utero famine exposure to unaffected controls suggest that in-utero undernutrition predisposes to development of obesity. However, birth rates drop dramatically during famines. Selection bias could arise if factors that contribute to obesity also protect fertility and/or fetal survival under famine conditions. We investigated this hypothesis using genetic analysis of a famine-exposed birth cohort. We genotyped participants in the Dutch Hunger Winter Families Study (DHWFS, N=950; 45% male), of whom 51% were exposed to the 1944-1945 Dutch Famine during gestation and 49% were their unexposed same-sex siblings or "time controls" born before or after the famine in the same hospitals. We computed body-mass index (BMI) polygenic indices (PGIs) in DHWFS participants and compared BMI PGIs between famine-exposed and control groups. Participants with higher polygenic risk had higher BMIs (Pearson r=0.42, p<0.001). However, differences between BMI PGIs of famine-exposed participants and controls were small and not statistically different from zero across specifications (Cohen's d=0.10, p>0.092). Our findings did not indicate selection bias, supporting the validity of the natural-experiment design within DHWFS. In summary, our study outlines a novel approach to explore the presence of selection bias in famine and other natural experiment studies.
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 | 0.022 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".