Development of Machine Learning–Based Risk Prediction Models to Predict Rapid Weight Gain in Infants: Analysis of Seven Cohorts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Rapid weight gain (RWG) during infancy, defined as an upward crossing of one centile line on a weight growth chart, is highly predictive of subsequent obesity risk. Identification of infant RWG could facilitate obesity risk assessment from infancy. Objective: Leveraging machine learning (ML) algorithms, this study aimed to develop and validate risk prediction models to identify infant RWG by the age of 1 year. Methods: Data from 7 Australian and New Zealand cohorts were pooled for risk model development and validation (n=5233). A total of 8 ML algorithms predicted infant RWG using routinely available prenatal and early postnatal factors, including maternal prepregnancy weight status, maternal smoking during pregnancy, gestational age, parity, infant sex, birth weight, any breastfeeding and timing of solids introduction at the age of 6 months. Pooled data were randomly split into a training dataset (70%) and a test dataset (30%) for model training and validation, respectively. Model consistency was evaluated using 5-fold cross-validation. Model predictive performance was evaluated by area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC), accuracy, precision, sensitivity, specificity, and Cohen κ. Results: The average prevalence of infant RWG was 27%. In the training dataset, all ML algorithms showed acceptable to excellent discrimination with AUCs ranging from 0.75 to 0.86. Accuracy, which indicates the overall correctness of the model, ranged from 0.69 to 0.78. Precision, which measures the model's ability to avoid false positives, ranged from 0.68 to 0.77. The spread of sensitivity, specificity, and Cohen κ of all models was 0.68-0.80, 0.65-0.78, and 0.38-0.56, respectively. Of the 8 algorithms, the Gradient Boosting model showed the most favorable predictive accuracy. Validation of the Gradient Boosting model in the testing dataset exhibited excellent discrimination (AUC 0.3-0.6) and good ability to make accurate predictions, particularly true positive cases (with accuracy and sensitivity>0.75), but modest performance for precision (0.57-0.60) and Cohen κ (0.47-0.52). Conclusions: This study developed the first set of ML-based risk prediction models to identify infants' risk of experiencing RWG by the age of 1 year with acceptable accuracy. The models could be feasibly integrated into routine child growth monitoring and may facilitate population-wide early obesity risk assessment in primary health care.
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 | 0.020 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".