The Association Between the Early Introduction of Solid Food and Childhood Obesity Risk: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the association between the timing of solid food introduction during infancy and the risk of childhood obesity. The review specifically examined whether early introduction (before four months of age) is linked with increased risk of overweight or obesity in childhood. We conducted a systematic search of five major databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar) from inception to January 15, 2025. Eligible studies included observational cohort, cross-sectional, quasi-experimental, and case-control studies that assessed the relationship between the timing of solid food introduction and childhood obesity outcomes. Two independent reviewers screened articles, extracted data, and assessed study quality using appropriate tools (ROBINS-I tool (Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions), AXIS, or the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Due to heterogeneity in study design, population, and outcome definitions, a narrative synthesis was conducted instead of meta-analysis. Seventeen studies met the inclusion criteria out of 1,402 screened records. Most studies found that the introduction of solid foods before four months of age was associated with increased risk of childhood obesity or higher BMI z-scores. This association was more prominent in formula-fed infants. However, variation in study design, exposure classification, and measurement outcomes limited comparability. Risk of bias across studies ranged from moderate to serious, primarily due to confounding and reliance on parental recall. Early introduction of solid foods (before four months) appears to be associated with increased childhood obesity risk, particularly in the absence of breastfeeding. Nevertheless, due to variability and methodological limitations across studies, findings should be interpreted with caution. Further high-quality prospective studies using standardized outcome measures are warranted. The review protocol is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42025640375).
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 | 0.008 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".