MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7132992443

The Association Between Maternal Preconception BMI and Early Childhood Nutrition

2023· dissertation· W7132992443 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Kate Elizabeth Braddon

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2023
Typedissertation
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicBreastfeeding Practices and Influences
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCouncil for Science and Technology PolicyHospital for Sick Children
KeywordsBreastfeedingEarly childhoodMediationAssociation (psychology)PregnancyBody mass index
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: It is unknown if maternal preconception BMI is associated with nutritional risk factors in early childhood and whether total breastfeeding duration plays a mediating role. Methods: Children ages 18 months to 5 years were recruited from TARGet Kids!, a primary care practice-based research network in Canada. Linear mixed effects models were fitted to analyze associations between maternal preconception BMI and child nutritional risk (measured through the NutriSTEP®), and mediation analyses were completed to investigate if total breastfeeding duration played a mediating role. Results: This study included 4733 children with 8611 observations. Each 1 unit increase in maternal preconception BMI was associated with a 0.09 increase in nutritional risk (95% CI 0.05, 0.12, p= <0.001), where 13.2% (95% CI: 7.1, 21.2) of the association was mediated through total breastfeeding duration. Conclusion: Higher maternal preconception BMI was associated with higher child nutritional risk, which was partially mediated by total breastfeeding duration.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.244
Threshold uncertainty score0.485

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.315 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace→Same topicBreastfeeding Practices and Influences→French-language works237,207→