Association of Obesity and Overweight with Early Puberty in Boys: A Meta Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the published associations between obesity, overweight, and central obesity and the risk of early puberty in boys. Methods: A comprehensive systematic search was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines using the Web of Science and PubMed databases up to December 31, 2024. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Statistical analyses were performed using R software (version 4.4.2), with odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) calculated. Results: A total of 15,452 studies were initially identified, of which six high-quality studies (n=64,485) met the inclusion criteria after screening. The analysis found that obesity [defined by body mass index (BMI)] was significantly associated with an increased risk of testicular enlargement (OR=1.27, 95% CI: 1.19-1.36). Overweight also increased the risk of testicular enlargement (OR=1.20, 95% CI: 1.11-1.29). Obesity was significantly associated with an increased risk of pubarche (OR=1.37, 95% CI: 1.23-1.53). Funnel plots and sensitivity analyses indicated no significant publication bias, and the results remained robust. Conclusion: This study demonstrated that obesity and overweight are reported to be associated with an increased risk of early puberty in boys. Childhood obesity appears to be an important determinant of earlier pubertal onset, though the relationship may follow a non-linear pattern at extreme BMI levels. The potential implications for adult reproductive health warrant further investigation.
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 | 0.013 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.037 |
| 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".