MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Association of Lung Growth With a Novel Index of Early-life Growth Conditions Deployable in Adulthood

2025· article· en· W4410270408 on OpenAlexaff
R. Goldman-Pham, Collins, Sanja Stanojevic, James P. Allinson, S. O. Shaheen, B.M. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIndex (typography)Association (psychology)LungEarly adulthoodYoung adultGerontologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Rationale: Early-life lung growth is important for later-life lung health, but methods for inferring impaired lung growth retrospectively in adulthood are lacking. A novel index of early-life growth conditions deployable in adulthood – the difference between attained adult height and genotype-predicted height (‘height-GaP’) – has been validated against prospectively ascertained adverse early-life growth conditions, but its relationship to lung growth is poorly understood. We tested the hypothesis that a larger height-GaP deficit assessed in adulthood would be associated with impaired lung growth. Methods: We analysed data from the population-based Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC), a United Kingdom birth cohort. Height-GaP was computed as the difference between attained adult height and genotype-predicted height computed using participant genotype data. Lung growth was inferred from pre-bronchodilator spirometry (forced vital capacity [FVC] and forced expired volume in 1-second [FEV1]) performed at ages 8, 15 and 24 years old. Sex-stratified piece-wise linear mixed effect models were fitted to assess the association of height-GaP with spirometric indices of lung growth and adjusted for genotype-predicted height. Results: Among 1,869 female (mean±SD age at height-GaP assessment: 24.4±0.8 years) and 1,188 male participants (mean±SD age at height-GaP assessment: 24.6±0.8 years), a larger height-GaP deficit was associated with significantly slower FVC growth from age 8 to 15 years (male: -18 mL/year per 1-SD height-GaP deficit; female: -13 mL/year per 1-SD height-GaP deficit) and from age 15 to 24 years (male: -17 mL/year per 1-SD height-GaP deficit; female: -7 mL/year per 1-SD height-GaP deficit) (Figure a.-b.). Larger height-GaP deficit was also associated with significantly slower FEV1 growth from age 8 to 15 years (male: -17 mL/year per 1-SD height-GaP deficit; female: -11 mL/year per 1-SD height-GaP deficit) and from age 15 to 24 years old (male: -12 mL/year per 1-SD height-GaP deficit; female: -4 mL/year per 1-SD height-GaP deficit) (Figure b.-c.). At 24 years old, a larger height-GaP deficit was associated with significantly lower FVC (male: -391 mL per 1-SD height-GaP deficit; female: -252 mL per 1-SD height-GaP deficit) and significantly lower FEV1 (male: -308 mL per 1-SD height-GaP deficit; female: -204 mL per 1-SD height-GaP deficit) (Figure). Conclusion: Larger deficit in height-GaP, a quantitative index of early-life growth conditions deployable in adulthood, was associated with slower FVC and FEV1 growth in childhood and lower peak lung function in early-adulthood. Height-GaP may facilitate research on the origins, periods of plasticity, and later-life health consequences of impaired lung growth.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.343 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine→Same topicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research→French-language works237,207→