Caregiver feeding practices, dietary intake and weight status of very low birthweight infants compared to term-born peers at school-entry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Very low birth weight (VLBW; <1250g) infants have an elevated risk of early onset cardiometabolic disease. While likely multi-factorial, the role of early caregiver feeding practices is unknown. We explored associations between primary caregiver feeding practices, diet, and weight of VLBW vs. socio-economically matched term-born peers at school-entry. VLBW children (n = 74; 61 % female; median [IQR] birth gestation of 27.8 [26.2, 29.1] weeks) and term-born controls (n = 74; 57 % female) participated at 5-7 years of age (school entry). We evaluated associations between caregiver-observed (videorecorded standardized lunch) and self-reported feeding practices (Comprehensive Feeding Practices Questionnaire) with diet quality (Healthy Eating Index-2015), nutrition risk (NutriSTEP®), and body mass index (BMI) z-scores using linear mixed models with interaction terms (feeding practice x birth group), adjusted for parent ethnicity. Children were 6.1 ± 0.4 years at the research visit. VLBW caregivers self-reported more coercive feeding than term-born caregivers, but no differences were observed during the videorecorded standardized lunch. More VLBW children had high nutrition risk (32 %) than term-born peers (13 %; p = 0.02), but there was no difference in diet quality nor prevalence of underweight, overweight, or obesity. Caregiver self-reported restriction was associated with higher BMI z-scores (β = 0.3 SD, 95 % CI 0.03, 0.6) among VLBW children only, while self-reported pressure to eat (β = -0.5 SD, 95 % CI -1.0, -0.1) and feeding to avoid underweight (β = -0.4 SD, 95 % CI -0.7, -0.07) were associated with lower BMI z-scores. In conclusion, caregiver feeding practices were associated with clinically relevant BMI z-scores among VLBW children. Future research should explore the most appropriate feeding guidance for VLBW infants during the transition home and post-discharge throughout the early years (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04308902). TRIAL REGISTRY: OptiMoM Grows Up: 5.5-year Follow-up of the OptiMoM Fortifier Study, NCT04308902, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04308902.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".