ArticlePediatric research2026
Predicting rapid weight gain in six-month-old infants: an exploratory modeling study.
Article in Pediatric research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRapid weight gain (RWG) in early life is a significant risk factor for childhood obesity. Its multifactorial etiology warrants exploratory statistical and machine-learning analysis to aid early prediction.
methodsData from a prospective infant study were used to compare four models for predicting RWG from birth to 6 months: two machine‑learning methods (SVM with a linear kernel and Naïve Bayes), one regularized regression (LASSO), and one traditional statistical model (Generalized Linear Model, GLM). Performance was evaluated using AUC, accuracy, precision, sensitivity, specificity, and F1‑score, each with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
resultsPrecision was comparable across models (0.70-0.75). The GLM showed the highest point estimates for AUC (0.66, 95% CI 0.48-0.83), specificity (0.45, 95% CI 0.37-0.53), accuracy (0.72, 95% CI 0.53-0.86), and F1‑score (0.800), while LASSO achieved the highest sensitivity (0.91, 95% CI 0.84-0.95). However, all CIs overlapped, indicating no statistically significant differences.
conclusionAlthough the GLM had the highest point estimates, all models showed similar and modest discriminative ability. Consistent early‑life predictors emerged across approaches, highlighting the multifactorial nature of RWG. Larger cohorts are needed to improve predictive accuracy and fully assess machine‑learning methods. IMPACT: Rapid weight gain (RWG) results from the dynamic interplay of biological, dietary, behavioral, and environmental factors. Developing robust models to identify key determinants is therefore essential. In this study, the GLM yielded the highest point estimates across key metrics, while the machine‑learning models nonetheless demonstrated promising potential. Predictive modeling in this context not only enables risk stratification but also provides insight into underlying mechanisms, thereby guiding future longitudinal research and informing preventive strategies to support healthy growth trajectories in early life.
Identifiers
41795019What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.