Risk of early childhood overweight/obesity following cesarean section: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cesarean section is considered as a potential risk factor for early childhood (0-6 years) overweight/obesity; however, the precise magnitude of this risk remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the risk of early childhood overweight/obesity in children delivered by cesarean section through a systematic review. SEARCH STRATEGY: MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, CNKI and Wanfang databases were searched using a combination of relevant terms for cesarean section, overweight/obesity and children. SELECTION CRITERIA: Cohort studies on cesarean section deliveries in children under 6 years of age and overweight/obesity were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened articles and extracted data. The quality of studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Meta-analyses were conducted to estimate the pooled rates and relative risks (RR) of overweight/obesity. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty cohort studies were included. Cesarean section delivery was associated with significantly increased risks of early childhood overweight/obesity (RR 1.18, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.13-1.24), overweight (RR 1.11, 95% CI: 1.04-1.19), and obesity (RR 1.23, 95% CI: 1.12-1.34) compared to vaginal delivery. Subgroup analyses showed low heterogeneity among all subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that children delivered by cesarean section may have an increased risk of developing overweight/obesity during early childhood compared to those delivered vaginally. These findings highlight the potential impact of delivery mode on the long-term health outcomes of 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 | 0.010 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".