Quantifying the impact of early life growth adversity on later life health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Early-life growth adversity is important to later-life health, but precision assessment in adulthood is challenging. We evaluated whether the difference between attained and genotype-predicted adult height ("height-GaP") would associate with prospectively ascertained early-life growth adversity and later-life all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. METHODS: Data were first analyzed from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC; n = 4582; 56/43% female/male) and UKBiobank (n = 483,385; 54/46% female/male). Genotype-predicted height was calculated using a multi-ancestry polygenic height score. Height-GaP was calculated as the difference between measured and genotype-predicted adult height. Early-life growth conditions were ascertained prospectively via standardized procedures (ALSPAC) and mortality via death register (UKBiobank). Regression models examined: (i) adult height-GaP as the outcome with early-life growth conditions as predictors; and (ii) mortality as the outcome with adult height-GaP as predictor. All models were adjusted for age, sex, genotype-predicted height and genetic ancestry. Analyses were replicated in the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study (DMHDS; n = 855; 49/51% female/male) and the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA; n = 6352; 52/48% female/male). RESULTS: Here we show that among ALSPAC participants (median [IQR] age: 24 [18-25] years at height-GaP assessment), lower gestational age at birth, greater pre- and post-natal deprivation indices, tobacco smoke exposure and less breastfeeding are associated with larger adult height-GaP deficit (p < 0.01). Among UKBiobank participants (mean ± SD age: 56 ± 8 years at height-GaP assessment), height-GaP deficit is associated with death from all-causes (adjusted hazard ratio comparing highest-to-lowest height-GaP deficit quartile [aHR]: 1.25 95%CI: 1.21-1.29), atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (aHR: 1.32 95%CI: 1.23-1.42) and coronary heart disease (aHR: 1.64 95%CI: 1.49-1.81). Early- and later-life height-GaP associations replicate in DMHDS and MESA. CONCLUSIONS: This study introduces a precision index of early-life growth adversity deployable in adulthood to investigate the developmental origins of longevity and improve health equity across the life course.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".