Skip to main content
PLOS Medicine logoLink to PLOS Medicine
. 2023 Jan 26;20(1):e1004036. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1004036

Gestational age at birth and body size from infancy through adolescence: An individual participant data meta-analysis on 253,810 singletons in 16 birth cohort studies

Johan L Vinther 1,*, Tim Cadman 2, Demetris Avraam 3, Claus T Ekstrøm 4, Thorkild I A Sørensen 1,5, Ahmed Elhakeem 2, Ana C Santos 6,7, Angela Pinot de Moira 1, Barbara Heude 8, Carmen Iñiguez 9,10,11, Costanza Pizzi 12, Elinor Simons 13,14, Ellis Voerman 15,16, Eva Corpeleijn 17, Faryal Zariouh 18, Gilian Santorelli 19, Hazel M Inskip 20,21, Henrique Barros 6,7, Jennie Carson 22,23, Jennifer R Harris 24, Johanna L Nader 25, Justiina Ronkainen 26, Katrine Strandberg-Larsen 1, Loreto Santa-Marina 10,27,28, Lucinda Calas 8, Luise Cederkvist 1, Maja Popovic 12, Marie-Aline Charles 18, Marieke Welten 15,16, Martine Vrijheid 10,29,30, Meghan Azad 13,31,32, Padmaja Subbarao 33,34,35, Paul Burton 3, Puishkumar J Mandhane 36, Rae-Chi Huang 22,37, Rebecca C Wilson 38, Sido Haakma 39, Sílvia Fernández-Barrés 29,30,40, Stuart Turvey 41, Susana Santos 15,16, Suzanne C Tough 42, Sylvain Sebert 26, Theo J Moraes 33, Theodosia Salika 21, Vincent W V Jaddoe 15,16, Deborah A Lawlor 2,43, Anne-Marie Nybo Andersen 1
PMCID: PMC9879424  PMID: 36701266

Abstract

Background

Preterm birth is the leading cause of perinatal morbidity and mortality and is associated with adverse developmental and long-term health outcomes, including several cardiometabolic risk factors and outcomes. However, evidence about the association of preterm birth with later body size derives mainly from studies using birth weight as a proxy of prematurity rather than an actual length of gestation. We investigated the association of gestational age (GA) at birth with body size from infancy through adolescence.

Methods and findings

We conducted a two-stage individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis using data from 253,810 mother–child dyads from 16 general population-based cohort studies in Europe (Denmark, Finland, France, Italy, Norway, Portugal, Spain, the Netherlands, United Kingdom), North America (Canada), and Australasia (Australia) to estimate the association of GA with body mass index (BMI) and overweight (including obesity) adjusted for the following maternal characteristics as potential confounders: education, height, prepregnancy BMI, ethnic background, parity, smoking during pregnancy, age at child’s birth, gestational diabetes and hypertension, and preeclampsia.

Pregnancy and birth cohort studies from the LifeCycle and the EUCAN-Connect projects were invited and were eligible for inclusion if they had information on GA and minimum one measurement of BMI between infancy and adolescence. Using a federated analytical tool (DataSHIELD), we fitted linear and logistic regression models in each cohort separately with a complete-case approach and combined the regression estimates and standard errors through random-effects study-level meta-analysis providing an overall effect estimate at early infancy (>0.0 to 0.5 years), late infancy (>0.5 to 2.0 years), early childhood (>2.0 to 5.0 years), mid-childhood (>5.0 to 9.0 years), late childhood (>9.0 to 14.0 years), and adolescence (>14.0 to 19.0 years).

GA was positively associated with BMI in the first decade of life, with the greatest increase in mean BMI z-score during early infancy (0.02, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.00; 0.05, p < 0.05) per week of increase in GA, while in adolescence, preterm individuals reached similar levels of BMI (0.00, 95% CI: −0.01; 0.01, p 0.9) as term counterparts. The association between GA and overweight revealed a similar pattern of association with an increase in odds ratio (OR) of overweight from late infancy through mid-childhood (OR 1.01 to 1.02) per week increase in GA. By adolescence, however, GA was slightly negatively associated with the risk of overweight (OR 0.98 [95% CI: 0.97; 1.00], p 0.1) per week of increase in GA. Although based on only four cohorts (n = 32,089) that reached the age of adolescence, data suggest that individuals born very preterm may be at increased odds of overweight (OR 1.46 [95% CI: 1.03; 2.08], p < 0.05) compared with term counterparts.

Findings were consistent across cohorts and sensitivity analyses despite considerable heterogeneity in cohort characteristics. However, residual confounding may be a limitation in this study, while findings may be less generalisable to settings in low- and middle-income countries.

Conclusions

This study based on data from infancy through adolescence from 16 cohort studies found that GA may be important for body size in infancy, but the strength of association attenuates consistently with age. By adolescence, preterm individuals have on average a similar mean BMI to peers born at term.


In an individual participant data meta-analysis of >250,000 singleton births from 16 birth cohort studies, Dr. Johan Lerbech Vinther and colleagues, explore gestational age at birth and body size from infancy through to adolescence.

Author summary

Why was this study done?

  • ■ Conditions and exposures in early life is suggested to play an important role in development of cardiometabolic health outcomes, including body size.

  • ■ The majority of previous research focused on the impact of size at birth (i.e., birth weight), rather than the timing of birth (i.e., gestational duration).

  • ■ Moreover, we know less about how different contextual factors influence associations between early life risk factors and later body size.

What did the researchers do and find?

  • ■ Our aim was to examine the association of gestational age with body mass index (BMI) and overweight from infancy through adolescence.

  • ■ We used data from 16 cohort studies in Europe, North America, and Australasia, including information on 253,810 mother–child dyads.

  • ■ We found that infants born preterm (<37 completed weeks of gestation) have a lower BMI and lower risk of overweight in infancy than their term counterparts and that this difference attenuates with age.

  • ■ In adolescence, BMI was similar between preterm and term peers, while there was an indication of an increased risk of overweight in very preterm individuals.

What do these findings mean?

  • ■ Our study suggests that, although being born early, preterm infants on average reach the body size as their term peers before adulthood.

  • ■ In line with earlier findings, children born very preterm may even be at increased risk of overweight in adulthood, here already indicated at entrance to adulthood.

  • ■ This last finding must be interpreted with caution, as only four cohorts (n = 32,089) contributed with data in adolescence.

  • ■ In addition, our study is based on data from high-income countries; hence, the findings are not generalisable to low- and middle-income country settings.

Introduction

Today, one in ten infants are born preterm (<37 completed weeks’ gestation) with an increased risk of perinatal mortality and morbidity that may persist and develop over the life-course [1,2,3]. Global estimates show an increase in preterm birth between 2000 and 2014, but the proportions vary between countries [4].

Previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses [5,6,7] have reported an association of gestational age (GA) at birth with conventional cardiometabolic risk factors and outcomes, including increased blood pressure, impaired glucose regulation, and insulin resistance in those born preterm [8,9,10,11]. An infant born preterm adapts to extrauterine conditions entering a phase of growth that possibly expresses a mismatch with the environment outside utero leading to alterations in body composition [12,13,14,15,16,17]. It has been hypothesised that these changes increase susceptibility to being overweight for preterm birth through various pathways and mechanisms, including catch-up weight [16,18,19,20,21,22]. However, later body size in preterm cohorts is not well characterised, and most studies define populations by birth weight rather than actual length of gestation [17,23]. It is recognised that determinants and consequences of gestational duration are quite different from those of foetal growth [23] and that birth weight reflects both gestational duration and foetal growth [24], hence being a potential intermediate variable on the causal pathway [25].

Studies have shown that infants born extremely (23 to 27 weeks gestation) and very preterm (28 to 31 weeks gestation) typically experience postnatal growth failure followed by catch-up weight and length gain within the first two years of life [20]. Growth in preterm children remains different from that of full term peers through childhood and into school age [26,27,28,29,30,31,32]. However, studies on growth in preterm cohorts across key stages of growth development [33] and at more advanced GA are scarce [10,20,34]. Several methodological considerations and sample characteristics complicate the interpretation and comparability of findings on the relationship between GA with later body size [5,6,35,36,37]. These include differences in study design; using birth weight as a proxy for GA; sample size; age at outcome; conditions under which variables are examined; type of statistical analysis; and availability of confounders.

In this study, we use the novel approach and unique opportunity of federated analysis of individual participant data (IPD) in a secure manner provided by the EU Child Cohort Network [38,39], an international network of European and Australasian birth cohort data. We base our study on 16 cohorts and 253,810 mother–child dyads, which enables us to extend previous research by including information on repeated body size measures during a long follow-up across a wide range of GA, and overcome the methodological limitations identified above.

The overall aim of this study was to determine the association between GA (completed weeks and clinical categories) and, respectively, body mass index (BMI) and overweight (including obesity) from infancy through adolescence in birth cohort studies representing diverse contexts.

Methods

Inclusion criteria and participating cohorts

In December 2019, we invited pregnancy and birth cohort studies within the EU Child Cohort Network from the LifeCycle and cohorts from the EUCAN-Connect consortia [38,39,40]. Cohorts were eligible for inclusion if they had information for live-born singletons on GA and at least one offspring measurement of BMI in one of six age-periods: early infancy (>0.0 to 0.5 years), late infancy (>0.5 to 2.0 years), early childhood (>2.0 to 5.0 years), mid-childhood (>5.0 to 9.0 years), late childhood (>9.0 to 14.0 years), and adolescence (>14.0 to 19.0 years).

The following 16 cohorts participated in the study: Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children, UK (ALSPAC) (n = 10,452) [41]; All Our Families, Canada (AOF) (n = 2,263) [42]; Born in Bradford, UK (BiB) (n = 13,097) [43]; CHILD Cohort Study, Canada (CHILD) (n = 2,984) [44]; Danish National Birth Cohort, Denmark (DNBC) (n = 81,117) [45]; The EDEN mother–child cohort on the prenatal and postnatal determinants of child health and development, France (EDEN) (n = 1,765) [46]; French Longitudinal Study of Children, France (ELFE) (n = 15,506) [47]; The Generation 21 Birth Cohort, Portugal (G21) (n = 6,439) [48]; The GECKO Drenthe Cohort, the Netherlands (GECKO) (n = 2,768) [49]; The Generation R Study, the Netherlands (GEN R) (n = 8,641) [50]; The Environment and Childhood Project, Spain (INMA) (n = 1,936) [51]; The Norwegian Mother, Father and Child Study, Norway (MoBa) (n = 86,553) [52]; The Northern Finland Birth Cohort 1986, Finland (NFBC1986) (n = 8,325) [53,54,55]; The NINFEA (Nasita e INFanzia: gli Effetti dell’Ambiente) birth cohort study, Italy (NINFEA) (n = 6,515) [56]; The Raine Study, Australia (The Raine Study) (n = 2,443) [57]; and The Southampton Women Survey, UK (SWS) (n = 3,007) [58].

Data access and federated analysis on DataSHIELD

In this study, we used pseudonymised data stored on local secure data servers in their original location [59,60,61,62] and harmonised according to protocols in the EU Child Cohort Network [39]. Cohort-specific description about methods for ascertaining and defining variables are documented in the EU Child Cohort Network catalogue (https://data-catalogue.molgeniscloud.org/catalogue/catalogue/#/) and the Maelstrom Catalogue (http://maelstrom-research.org) for studies in LifeCycle and EUCAN-Connect, respectively. Data were analysed remotely through the R-based and open-source software, DataSHIELD, which allows federated analysis through one-stage and two-stage IPD meta-analysis approaches with active disclosure controls [63,64,65,66]. Fourteen cohorts gave permission to analyse their data via DataSHIELD, and two cohorts (AOF, CHILD) via data transfer agreements.

Gestational age at birth

Information on GA (in days) was available as harmonised IPD with source of delivery information obtained from medical records in the majority of cohorts (S1 Table and S1 Text). GA was rounded to completed weeks and further categorised into five groups [67]: 28 to 33 weeks (very preterm), 34 to 36 weeks (late preterm), 37 to 38 weeks (early term), 39 to 41 weeks (full term), and 42 to 43 weeks (postterm).

Offspring BMI and overweight and obesity

Information on height (cm) and weight (kg) was available as harmonised IPD measured in either a clinical setting or self-reported by parents or index child (S1 Table). BMI was calculated as weight (kg)/(height (m))2 [68], and sex-and-age specific BMI z-scores were calculated per month using instructions from Vidmar and colleagues [69] and following the growth standard [70] and reference [71] from the World Health Organization (WHO). We defined overweight (including obesity) following WHO cutoffs, separately for children <5 years (>2 standard deviations above WHO Child Growth Standard median) and ≥5 years (>1 standard deviation above WHO Growth Reference median). In several cohorts (ALSPAC, BiB, DNBC, GEN R, INMA, NINFEA, NFBC1986, the Raine Study, SWS), multiple measurements of BMI were available for the same child within one or more of the six age-groups. In such cases, the latest available measurement within each age group was chosen.

Confounders

Confounders were selected a priori as factors that were known or plausible causes of variation in GA and subsequent body size with a directed acyclic graph used in discussions to select the final set of confounders (S1 Fig).

The resulting confounders were as follows: maternal education (ISCED-2011/97, low/medium/high) (S1 Text) [72]; maternal height (continuous, m); maternal prepregnancy BMI (continuous, kg/m2); maternal smoking during pregnancy (yes/no); maternal age at child’s birth (continuous, years); gestational diabetes (yes/no); gestational hypertension (yes/no); preeclampsia (yes/no); maternal ethnic background (western/nonwestern/mixed) (S1 Text); and parity (nulliparous/parous). For the objective of this study, we did neither include birth weight or puberty as they may distort interpretation of the results being intermediate variables on the causal pathway [25].

Statistical analysis

Distributions of GA at birth, body size measures, and confounders were obtained for each cohort separately and for all cohorts combined.

We conducted a two-stage meta-analysis to estimate associations between GA with BMI and overweight, adjusted for confounders. We fitted a linear regression model to examine the associations of GA in weeks and in clinical categories with BMI z-scores. Models were fitted in each cohort separately, and cohort-specific coefficients and standard errors were combined and assigned weights using random-effects model to attain overall effect estimates [66,73]. The analyses were performed separately for the six age-groups (>0.0 to 0.5 years, >0.5 to 2.0 years, >2.0 to 5.0 years, >5.0 to 9.0 years, >9.0 to 14.0 years, and >14.0 to 19.0 years). To examine the associations between GA in weeks and in clinical categories and odds of overweight (compared with normal weight), we used a binomial logistic regression model.

The main results are those from regression analyses adjusted for the maximum set of baseline confounders available within each cohort. Models were adjusted for maternal age at child’s birth, height, education, prepregnancy BMI, and parity in all cohorts. Models were additionally adjusted for maternal ethnic background, gestational hypertension, gestational diabetes, and preeclampsia in cohorts where these were available (Table 1).

Table 1. Baseline characteristics of study participants in the 16 participating cohorts.

Study
population
Year of
birth
Sex (%),
female
GA at birth (weeks), mean (SD) Maternal age at birth (years), mean (SD) Maternal
education (%),
low
Maternal
education (%),
medium
Maternal
education (%),
high
Maternal ethnic
background (%),
western
Maternal ethnic
background (%),
nonwestern
Maternal ethnic
background (%),
mixed
Maternal height at birth (cm), mean (SD) Prepregnancy
BMI (kg/m2), mean (SD)
Prepregnancy
overweight (%)
Maternal
smoking in
pregnancy (%)
Gestational
diabetes (%)
Gestational
hypertension (%)
Maternal
preeclampsia (%)
Parity,
nulliparity (%)
All cohorts
(N = 16)
253,810 1985–2017 49.1 39.8 (1.8) 30.0 (4.7) 16.9 30.5 52.6 77.6 18.7 3.7 167.1 (6.5) 23.7 (4.3) 28.6 18.0 2.0 7.4 1.6 47.7
ALSPAC,
United Kingdom
10,452 1991–1993 49.6 39.9 (1.7) 28.8 (4.6) 14.5 68.9 16.7 98.4 1.6 0.0 164.1 (6.7) 22.6 (4.4) 20.5 25.4 0.5 14.7 1.9 45.4
AOF,
Canada
2,263 2008–2011 47.4 38.9 (1.7) 31.3 (4.4) 77.5 20.2 2.3 81.7 16.7 1.6 165.9 (7.0) 24.5 (5.2) 34.8 10.7 5.1 7.4 6.8 50.8
BiB,
United Kingdom
13,097 2007–2011 48.4 39.5 (1.8) 27.6 (5.6) 56.8 15.8 27.4 42.2 55.9 1.9 161.6 (6.5) 26.0 (5.6) 50.2 16.3 8.0 7.1 2.6 39.5
CHILD,
Canada
2,984 2009–2012 47.5 39.5 (1.4) 31.8 (4.6) 8.3 28.7 63.0 73.3 20.6 6.1 165.0 (6.9) 24.2 (5.0) 32.5 18.7 4.2 7.6 1.3 37.5
DNBC,
Denmark
81,117 1996–2003 49.6 39.9 (1.8) 30.1 (4.2) 26.4 21.9 51.7 168.8 (6.1) 23.6 (4.2) 27.4 25.4 0.9 12.6 2.4 47.6
EDEN,
France
1,765 2003–2006 48.0 39.7 (1.7) 29.6 (4.8) 6.1 38.8 55.1 99.0 0.5 0.5 163.6 (6.2) 23.2 (4.6) 25.9 25.5 6.5 1.9 2.6 45.3
ELFE,
France
15,506 2011 48.8 39.6 (1.5) 30.4 (4.9) 7.2 32.9 59.9 81.1 12.0 6.9 165.0 (6.3) 23.4 (4.8) 26.6 19.3 6.9 2.0 1.5 46.1
G21,
Portugal
6,439 2005–2006 48.6 39.2 (1.6) 29.3 (5.4) 46.0 28.8 25.3 95.5 2.6 2.0 160.8 (6.2) 24.0 (4.3) 31.0 37.5 6.5 1.9 2.0 58.0
GECKO,
the Netherlands
2,768 2006–2008 49.6 39.8 (1.6) 30.7 (4.4) 35.6 28.6 35.8 95.7 2.7 1.7 171.6 (6.3) 24.7 (4.7) 37.3 15.6 2.5 7.9 2.6 40.5
GEN R,
the Netherlands
8,641 2002–2006 49.6 40.3 (1.8) 30.6 (5.2) 10.3 44.6 45.0 56.8 33.3 9.9 167.5 (7.5) 23.6 (4.3) 27.8 26.0 1.1 3.8 2.2 55.3
INMA,
Spain
1,936 2004–2008 48.6 39.9 (1.5) 31.8 (4.2) 24.1 40.9 35.0 95.6 4.4 0.0 162.8 (6.2) 23.5 (4.2) 25.1 31.5 4.4 55.5
MoBa,
Norway
86,553 1999–2009 48.7 39.8 (1.8) 30.3 (4.5) 2.2 31.8 66.0 168.2 (5.9) 24.0 (4.2) 31.0 8.7 0.4 4.9 0.1 47.7
NFBC1986,
Finland
8,325 1985–1986 49.1 39.8 (1.6) 27.8 (5.5) 38.9 37.3 23.7 163.2 (5.5) 22.3 (3.5) 16.9 23.8 4.0 2.5 34.2
NINFEA,
Italy
6,515 2005–2017 49.3 39.7 (1.7) 33.2 (4.3) 4.6 32.5 62.9 165.0 (6.2) 22.5 (3.8) 19.0 8.0 8.1 3.3 2.2 72.7
The Raine study,
Australia
2,443 1989–1992 48.7 39.2 (2.0) 27.8 (5.8) 52.7 27.1 20.2 89.4 10.6 0.0 163.6 (6.6) 22.3 (4.2) 17.7 27.5 1.8 19.3 4.9 47.7
SWS,
United Kingdom
3,007 1999–2007 48.0 39.7 (1.8) 30.2 (3.8) 12.0 59.3 28.7 95.7 3.7 0.6 163.3 (6.5) 25.2 (4.8) 41.3 15.6 1.3 3.3 2.8 51.5

Percentages include non-missing, and empty cells represent no available data.

BMI, body mass index; SD, standard deviation.

Results are presented with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and I2 statistics [74]. We examined between-study heterogeneity by meta-regression in meta-analyses with considerable heterogeneity reflected by either I2 > 75% or I2 approximately 75% with effect estimates in different directions. The meta-regressions were conducted to determine which study characteristics were independently associated with between-study heterogeneity. In addition, we undertook “leave-one-out” analysis for cross-validation to explore the influence of each study on the overall estimate [75], while subgroup analysis with sex (boys versus girls), maternal education (high versus low/medium), maternal smoking in pregnancy (no versus yes), and birth year (<2001, ≥2001) was performed to measure the robustness of our findings.

Statistical analyses were performed using DataSHIELD and the Statistical Software R (v4.1) [76]. We mainly used the ds.getWGSR and ds.glmSLMA functions from the dsBaseClient (v6.1.0, https://github.com/datashield/dsBaseClient/) and the dh.makeStrata function from the ds-Helper package (https://github.com/lifecycle-project/ds-helper), as well as to the rma-package (v3.0.2) [77]. Forest plots were created using Excel 2016.

Ethical approval

This study builds upon a federated analysis solution that facilitates cross-border sharing of harmonised and pseudonymised data in compliance with both European and national data protection, patient’s rights, and research ethics regulation. Rather than sharing or transferring individual-level data, only nondisclosive low-dimensional summary statistics are made accessible upon request. Prior to analysing the data via DataSHIELD, the lead author obtained a waiver of consent (data access or data transfer agreement) from each cohort study via the partner in LifeCycle and EUCAN-Connect. The data from the 16 cohorts were only accessible as meta-data controlled through active disclosure protection, which mitigates the risk of identification of study participants. Further information about the infrastructural setup using DataSHIELD, and previous international networks using similar methods, are describe in details elsewhere [78,79,80].

Each participating cohort obtained a written consent from the mother/parents, while details about the study-specific ethical approvals are listed here in an alphabetic order after the cohort name: (ALSPAC) Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the ALSPAC Ethics and Law Committee and the Local Research Ethics Committees; (AOF) The All Our Families study was approved by the Child Health Research Office and the Conjoint Health Research Ethics Board of the Faculties of Medicine, Nursing, and Kinesiology, University of Calgary, and the Affiliated Teaching Institutions (Ethics ID 20821 and 22821); (BiB) Ethics approval has been obtained for the main platform study and all of the individual substudies from the Bradford Research Ethics Committee; (CHILD) Ethics approvals for the study were obtained at recruitment and at each data collection phase from all four Canadian sites; (DNBC) The DNBC complies with the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Danish National Committee on Biomedical Research Ethics; (EDEN): The study received approval from the ethics committee (CCPPRB) of Kremlin Bicêtre on 12 December 2002 and from CNIL (Commission Nationale Informatique et Liberté), the French data privacy institution; (ELFE): Ethical approvals for data collection in maternity units and for each data collection wave during follow-up were obtained from the national advisory committee on information processing in health research (CCTIRS: Comité Consultatif sur le Traitement de l’Information en matière de Recherche dans le domaine de la Santé), the national data protection authority (CNIL: Comission Nationale Informatique et Liberté) and, in case of invasive data collection such as biological sampling, the committee for protection of persons engaged in research (CPP: Comité de Protection des Personnes). The ELFE study was also approved by the national committee for statistical information (CNIS: Conseil National de l’Information Statistique); (G21) Generation XXI was approved by the Portuguese Data Protection Authority and by the Ethics Committee of Hospital São João, and data confidentiality and protection were guaranteed in all procedures according to the Declaration of Helsinki. Signed informed consent was obtained for all adults and children participants had it signed by their legal guardian at every study waves; (GECKO) The GECKO Drenthe study complies with the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of the University Medical Center Groningen; (GEN R) The general design, all research aims and the specific measurements in the Generation R Study have been approved by the Medical Ethical Committee of the Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam. New measurements will only be embedded in the study after approval of the Medical Ethical Committee, (INMA) The INMA project was approved by the ethics committee in each area; (MoBa) The establishment and data collection in MoBa was previously based on a license from the Norwegian Data protection agency and approval from The Regional Committee for Medical Research Ethics, and it is now based on regulations related to the Norwegian Health Registry Act; (NINFEA) The Ethical Committee of the San Giovanni Battista Hospital and CTO/CRF/Maria Adelaide Hospital of Turin approved the NINFEA study (approval N. 0048362, and subsequent amendments); (The Raine study) The original cohort study received approval from the King Edward Memorial Hospital for women ethics committee in 1989 (DD/JS/459), and all subsequent follow-ups also received institutional human research ethics committee (HREC) approval prior to commencing. All participants were provided with participant information sheets and parents (Gen1) provided informed consent, and the child (Gen2) provided assent. When the Raine study Gen2 participants turned 18 years of age, ethics approval was further received from the University of Western Australia HREC (RA/4/1/2100) to contact and obtain consent from Raine study participants for any data that was collected before they were 18 to be used for future research. A further UWA HREC was provided to all a single ‘overarching’ approval code that recognises all previous approvals under which previous data and/or bio-samples were collected. This approval was received on 29 April 2020 and provides a single consolidated approval (RA/4/20/5722) for use of research data and/or bio-samples held in the Raine study data collection; (SWS) The study had full approval at each wave from the Southampton and Southwest Hampshire Local Research Ethics Committee.

Results

Descriptive statistics

A total of 253,810 mother–child dyads in 16 cohort studies from 11 countries had information on GA and at least one measurement of offspring BMI.

Descriptive information including characteristics of GA at birth, body size measures, and covariates for study participants are displayed separately for each cohort and for the cohorts combined in Tables 13.

Table 3. Distribution and age of body size measurements in the 16 participating cohorts.

Early Infancy
>0–0.5 years (1–6 months)
Late Infancy
>0.5–2 years (7–24 months)
Early Childhood
>2–5 years (25–60 months)
Mid-Childhood
>5–9 years (61–108 months)
Late Childhood
>9–14 years (109–168 months)
Adolescence
>14–19 years (169–227 months)
N Age in
months (SD)
BMI
z-score
Overweight,
n (%)
N Age in
months (SD)
BMI
z-score
Overweight,
n (%)
N Age in
months (SD)
BMI
z-score
Overweight,
n (%)
N Age in
months (SD)
BMI
z-score
Overweight,
n (%)
N Age in
months (SD)
BMI
z-score
Overweight,
n (%)
N Age in
months (SD)
BMI
z-score
Overweight,
n (%)
All cohorts
(N = 16)
185,428 4.5 (1.3) −0.19 3,804 (2.1) 186,419 14.7 (4.0) 0.36 9,979 (5.4) 106,916 44.7 (10.5) 0.34 6,512 (6.0) 154,863 88.0 (10.8) 0.17 21.1 78,230 136.7 (14.4) 0.08 16,457 (21.0) 54,155 211.8 (10.1) 0.12 9,869 (18.2)
ALSPAC,
United Kingdom
1,014 3.8 (0.2) −0.10 14 (1.4) 1,368 17.2 (2.8) 0.78 111 (8.1) 1,261 47.1 (5.4) 0.63 88 (7.0) 8,298 97.9 (11.4) 0.40 2,325 (28.0) 9,202 156.5 (13.7) 0.29 2,492 (27.1) 7,703 206.5 (11.0) 0.23 1,754 (22.8)
AOF,
Canada
1,412 17.2 (2.8) 0.83 254 (18.0) 1,878 44.1 (11.8) 0.21 124 (6.6) 1,745 92.9 (12.5) 0.00 380 (21.8)
BiB,
United Kingdom
11,724 1.9 (1.1) −0.59 68 (0.6) 10,384 19.2 (5.5) 0.19 536 (5.1) 9,813 51.8 (9.2) 0.48 839 (8.5) 8,241 93.6 (12.7) 0.29 2,377 (28.8) 1,141 119.5 (6.6) 0.37 397 (34.8)
CHILD,
Canada
2,847 12.7 (5.9) 0.31 195 (6.8) 2,750 46.5 (10.2) 0.48 192 (7.0) 1,652 61.9 (2.3) 0.28 300 (18.2)
DNBC,
Denmark
51,411 5.2 (0.4) −0.32 1,058 (2.1) 51,429 12.4 (1.0) 0.29 3,077 (6.0) 42,930 84.1 (3.5) 0.02 6,619 (15.4) 44,070 136.3 (7.4) −0.14 6,619 (15.0) 38,351 216.3 (3.9) 0.11 6,711 (17.5)
EDEN,
France
1,701 5.0 (0.8) −0.28 20 (1.1) 1,721 19.3 (4.8) 0.35 76 (4.4) 1,524 47.8 (8.0) 0.12 43 (2.3) 1,240 86.8 (13.8) 0.05 202 (16.3) 807 133.9 (9.2) −0.10 160 (19.8)
ELFE,
France
13,876 3.8 (0.9) −0.25 211 (1.5) 13,628 14.2 (5.0) 0.19 502 (3.7) 12,002 46.4 (9.5) 0.05 385 (3.2) 7,812 86.7 (16.6) −0.05 1,251 (16.0) 492 109.3 (0.3) −0.08 70 (14.2)
G21,
Portugal
5,048 51.2 (3.4) 0.63 535 (10.6) 5,604 85.2 (4.2) 0.74 2,105 (37.6) 4,884 121.9 (4.2) 0.72 2,084 (42.7)
GECKO,
the Netherlands
2,714 5.0 (0.7) −0.18 31 (1.1) 2,683 17.3 (3.6) 0.50 122 (4.5) 2,247 41.9 (7.6) 0.33 92 (4.1) 2,258 70.4 (4.2) 0.43 514 (22.8) 2,178 127.5 (5.4) 0.26 535 (24.6)
GEN R,
the Netherlands
6,252 4.4 (1.2) −0.17 109 (1.7) 6,973 17.8 (3.6) 0.68 549 (7.9) 6,452 42.1 (6.6) 0.38 350 (5.4) 6,609 74.3 (6.7) 0.46 1,688 (25.5) 5,591 117.5 (3.9) 0.35 1,472 (26.3)
INMA,
Spain
1,873 4.9 (0.9) −0.14 30 (1.6) 1,927 17.6 (3.1) 0.47 116 (6.0) 1,611 52.7 (2.8) 0.61 146 (9.1) 1,417 93.5 (8.2) 0.81 573 (40.4) 937 130.8 (7.8) 0.73 406 (43.3)
MOBA,
Norway
83,416 4.5 (1.3) −0.06 1,961 (2.4) 75,091 18.5 (4.2) 0.37 3,210 (4.3) 48,835 41.4 (11.1) 0.35 2,982 (6.1) 52,132 91.7 (9.7) 0.11 10,808 (20.7)
NFBC1986,
Finland
5,671 5.2 (0.7) 0.05 149 (2.6) 5,795 18.5 (4.2) 0.64 402 (6.9) 5,470 49.8 (7.6) 0.35 207 (3.8) 8,081 92.6 (8.8) 0.32 1,973 (24.4) 5,318 157.3 (9.8) 0.22 1,212 (22.8) 6,535 195.0 (8.3) −0.01 992 (15.2)
NINFEA,
Italy
5,036 4.7 (1.5) −0.39 129 (2.6) 6,032 17.2 (4.2) 0.41 468 (7.8) 4,721 51.2 (5.1) 0.06 241 (5.1) 2,724 86.8 (4.2) 0.08 592 (21.7) 1,005 131.2 (16.6) 0.04 216 (21.5)
The Raine study,
Australia
2,220 13.9 (1.6) 0.45 109 (4.9) 584 26.2 (1.6) 0.06 15 (2.6) 2,107 93.9 (9.0) 0.39 536 (25.4) 1,732 133.8 (15.1) 0.52 569 (32.9) 1,566 196.3 (14.5) 0.41 412 (26.3)
SWS
United Kingdom
740 5.8 (0.1) 0.21 24 (3.2) 2,909 14.8 (5.2) 0.69 252 (8.7) 2,720 41.5 (7.5) 0.53 173 (6.3) 2,013 84.3 (10.2) 0.29 451 (22.4) 873 111.4 (2.6) 0.19 225 (25.7)

Percentages include non-missing, and empty cells represent no available data.

BMI, body mass index; N, sample size; SD, standard deviation.

There were distinct differences in the cohort-specific sample sizes (n = 1,765 to 86,553), distributions of maternal education (range: 2.2% to 77.5% for low), maternal ethnicity (range: 42.2% to 99.0% for western; 0.5% to 55.9% for nonwestern; 0.0% to 9.9% for mixed); maternal prepregnancy overweight (range: 16.9% to 50.2%), gestational hypertension (range: 1.9% to 19.3%), and parity (range for nulliparous: 34.2% to 72.7%) (Table 1).

The mean GA was 39.8 weeks, and overall 5.5% were born preterm (range: 3.1% to 7.5%), 17.8% (range: 11.8% to 31.6%) were born early term, 69.9% were born full term (range 61.1% to 73.6%), and 6.7% (range: 0.2% to 15.4%) were born postterm (Table 2). The majority of the cohorts had study participants included for analysis in all five categories of GA, except CHILD (34 to 43 weeks gestation).

Table 2. Distribution of gestational age groups in the 16 participating cohorts.

Gestational age at birth (completed weeks)
Very preterm
28–33 weeks, n (%)
Late preterm,
34–36 weeks, n (%)
Early term,
37–38 weeks, n (%)
Full term,
39–41 weeks, n (%)
Post term,
42–43 weeks, n (%)
All cohorts
(N = 16)
3,137 (1.2) 11,061 (4.3) 45,088 (17.8) 177,465 (69.9) 17,059 (6.7)
ALSPAC,
United Kingdom
112 (1.2) 440 (4.2) 1,779 (17.0) 7,303 (69.9) 808 (7.7)
AOF,
Canada
29 (1.3) 114 (5.0) 591 (26.1) 1,525 (67.4) 4 (0.2)
BiB,
United Kingdom
184 (1.4) 607 (4.6) 2,948 (22.5) 9,189 (70.2) 169 (1.3)
CHILD,
Canada
126 (4.2) 700 (23.5) 2,133 (71.5) 25 (0.8)
DNBC,
Denmark
1,028 (1.3) 3,448 (4.3) 13,286 (16.4) 56,409 (69.5) 6,946 (8.6)
EDEN,
France
25 (1.4) 70 (4.0) 335 (18.9) 1,299 (73.6) 36 (2.0)
ELFE,
France
70 (0.5) 763 (4.9) 3,195 (20.6) 11,400 (73.5) 78 (0.5)
G21,
Portugal
88 (1.4) 372 (5.8) 2,033 (31.6) 3,935 (61.1) 11 (0.2)
GECKO,
the Netherlands
18 (0.7) 120 (4.3) 551 (19.9) 1,948 (70.4) 131 (4.7)
GEN R,
the Netherlands
83 (1.0) 302 (3.5) 1,016 (11.8) 5,911 (68.4) 1,329 (15.4)
INMA,
Spain
8 (0.4) 52 (2.7) 373 (19.3) 1,390 (71.8) 113 (5.8)
MoBa,
Norway
1,215 (1.4) 3,797 (4.4) 14,415 (16.7) 60,574 (70.0) 6,552 (7.6)
NFBC1986,
Finland
104 (1.3) 294 (3.5) 1,455 (17.5) 6,151 (73.9) 321 (3.9)
NINFEA,
Italy
69 (1.1) 293 (4.5) 1,383 (21.2) 4,510 (69.2) 259 (4.0)
The Raine study,
Australia
50 (2.1) 132 (5.4) 509 (20.8) 1,611 (65.9) 141 (5.8)
SWS
United Kingdom
44 (1.5) 131 (4.4) 519 (17.3) 2,177 (72.4) 136 (4.5)

Empty cells represent no available data.

From infancy to age 19 years, 711,856 measurements of BMI were available for 253,810 children. The number of cohorts and participants with data on BMI and overweight varied across the six age-bands with most cohorts and participants in infancy and mid-childhood and fewest in adolescence, where four cohorts (ALSPAC, DNBC, NFBC1986, and the Raine Study) contributed with data on 36,895 individuals. The proportion of children classified as overweight also varied between cohorts and across age-bands due to different cutoffs used for children <5 years and in children ≥5 years (Table 3).

The percentage of missing values for baseline characteristics is presented in the Supporting information (S2 Table).

Gestational age at birth and BMI z-scores

The overall unadjusted and adjusted estimates for the associations of GA in completed weeks and clinical categories with BMI z-score are displayed in Figs 1 and 2, while cohort-specific estimates are available in the Supporting information (S2 Fig).

Fig 1. Forest plot of associations between GA (completed weeks) and BMI z-score.

Fig 1

Overall unadjusted and adjusted estimates with 95% CIs from IPD meta-analyses of the study-specific linear regression models, where cohorts were assigned weights under the random-effects model. The dot in the forest plot represents the adjusted estimates, while the whiskers span the 95% CI, whereas I2-statistics (I2), sample size (N), studies, and p-value (two-sided, <0.05) relate to adjusted estimates. Estimates reflect a mean difference in BMI z-scores per week increase in gestational at birth in early infancy (>0–0.5 years), late infancy (>0.5–2.0 years), early childhood (>2–5 years), mid-childhood (>5–9 years), late childhood (>9–14 years), and adolescence (>14–19 years). Models are adjusted for sex of child, and the following maternal characteristics: age at child’s birth, education, height, prepregnancy BMI, smoking during pregnancy, parity, ethnic background, gestational diabetes and hypertension, and preeclampsia. Cohort-specific estimates were adjusted for the maximum available set of the confounding variables (see Table 1). BMI, body mass index; CI, confidence interval; GA, gestational age; IPD, individual participant data.

Fig 2. Forest plot of associations between GA (clinical categories) and BMI z-score.

Fig 2

Overall unadjusted and adjusted estimates with 95% CIs from IPD meta-analyses of the study-specific linear regression models, where cohorts were assigned weights under the random-effects model. The dot in the forest plot represents the adjusted estimates, while the whiskers span the 95% CI, whereas I2-statistics (I2), sample size (N), studies, and p-value (two-sided, <0.05) relate to adjusted estimates. Estimates reflect a mean BMI z-scores compared to full term (reference category) in early infancy (>0–0.5 years), late infancy (>0.5–2.0 years), early childhood (>2–5 years), mid-childhood (>5–9 years), late childhood (>9–14 years), and adolescence (>14–19 years). Models are adjusted for sex of child, and the following maternal characteristics: age at child’s birth, education, height, prepregnancy BMI, smoking during pregnancy, parity, ethnic background, gestational diabetes and hypertension, and preeclampsia. Cohort-specific estimates were adjusted for the maximum available set of the confounding variables (see Table 1). BMI, body mass index; CI, confidence interval; GA, gestational age; IPD, individual participant data.

The adjusted estimates indicate a positive association of GA with BMI in early infancy (>0.0 to 0.5 years): 0.02 SD per week increase in GA [95% CI: 0.00, 0.05, p < 0.05], GA in clinical categories was associated with a BMI z-score of −0.55 [95% CI: −0.82, −0.28, p < 0.01] for very preterm and −0.15 [95% CI: −0.26, −0.05, p < 0.01] for late preterm compared to full term. Results attenuated through childhood and continued to decrease to zero by adolescence (0.00 [95% CI: −0.02, 0.02], p 0.9) with no difference in BMI z-score between preterm and full term peers.

Between-study heterogeneity was examined through meta-regression in four age-bands (>0.0 to 0.5 years, >5.0 to 9.0 years, >9.0 to 14.0 years, and >14.0 to 19.0 years) having considerable heterogeneity, with largest I2-statistics (96.4%) in early infancy (S3 Table). We examined age at measurement, child sex, maternal education, and maternal smoking in pregnancy as between-study characteristics. The meta-regression found age at measurement to be significantly associated with heterogeneity in early infancy (β = −0.029, se = 0.008, p < 0.01); maternal education in late childhood (β 0.001, se 0.001, p 0.05), and both maternal education (β = 0.001, se = 0.001, p < 0.01) and smoking in pregnancy (β 0.007, se 0.003, p 0.01) in adolescence.

The “leave-one-out” analyses gave similar overall effect estimates in all age-bands and did not change between-study heterogeneity markedly (S3 Fig); however, in adolescence, leaving out ALSPAC changed the I2 from 70.4% to 0.4% (S3F Fig).

Subgroup analyses were consistent with the main findings across sex (S4 Fig), maternal educational level (S5 Fig), and pregnancy smoking status (S6 Fig).

Gestational age at birth and overweight

The overall unadjusted and adjusted estimates for the associations of GA in completed weeks and clinical categories with odds of overweight are displayed in Figs 3 and 4, while cohort-specific estimates are available in the Supporting information (S8 Fig).

Fig 3. Forest plot of associations between GA (completed weeks) and odds of overweight.

Fig 3

Overall unadjusted and adjusted ORs with 95% CIs from IPD meta-analyses of the study-specific logistic regression model, where cohorts were assigned weights under the random-effects model. The dot in the forest plot represents the adjusted estimates, while the whiskers span the 95% CI, whereas I2-statistics (I2), sample size (N), studies, and p-value (two-sided, <0.05) relate to adjusted estimates. Estimates reflect OR for overweight per week increase in gestational at birth in early infancy (>0–0.5 years), late infancy (>0.5–2.0 years), early childhood (>2–5 years), mid-childhood (>5–9 years), late childhood (>9–14 years), and adolescence (>14–19 years). Models are adjusted for sex of child, and the following maternal characteristics: age at child’s birth, education, height, prepregnancy BMI, smoking during pregnancy, parity, ethnic background, gestational diabetes and hypertension, and preeclampsia. Cohort-specific estimates were adjusted for the maximum available set of the confounding variables (see Table 1). BMI, body mass index; CI, confidence interval; GA, gestational age; IPD, individual participant data; OR, odds ratio.

Fig 4. Forest plot of associations between GA (clinical categories) and odds of overweight.

Fig 4

Overall unadjusted and adjusted ORs with 95% CIs from IPD meta-analyses of the study-specific logistic regression model estimates, where cohorts were assigned weights under the random-effects model. The dot in the forest plot represents the adjusted OR, while the whiskers span the 95% CI, whereas I2-statistics (I2), sample size (N), studies, and p-value (two-sided, <0.05) relate to adjusted OR. Estimates reflect OR for overweight compared to full term (reference category) in early infancy (>0–0.5 years), late infancy (>0.5–2.0 years), early childhood (>2–5 years), mid-childhood (>5–9 years), late childhood (>9–14 years), and adolescence (>14–19 years). Models are adjusted for sex of child, and the following maternal characteristics: age at child’s birth, education, height, prepregnancy BMI, smoking during pregnancy, parity, ethnic background, gestational diabetes and hypertension, and preeclampsia. Cohort-specific estimates were adjusted for the maximum available set of the confounding variables (see Table 1). BMI, body mass index; CI, confidence interval; GA, gestational age; IPD, individual participant data; OR, odds ratio.

There was a positive association of GA with odds of overweight (adj. OR 1.02 per week increase in GA) in late infancy [95% CI: 1.00, 1.03, p 0.1] and early childhood [95% CI: 0.99, 1.05, p 0.2]. Results attenuated through childhood and continued to decrease to below one by late childhood. In adolescence (>14.0 to 19.0 years), there was a negative association of GA with odds of overweight with very preterm having a significantly increased risk of overweight (adj. OR 1.46 [95% CI: 1.03, 2.08, p < 0.05] compared with full term peers.

None of the five age-bands had considerable between-study heterogeneity (I2 < 55%); hence, we did not perform meta-regression for the associations of GA with odds of overweight. The “leave-one-out” analyses were consistent with the main findings without changing the overall effect estimate in any of the age-bands or any notable changes in the between-study heterogeneity (S9 Fig). The subgroup analysis showed no difference in the associations of GA with odds of overweight for sex (S10 Fig), maternal educational level (S11 Fig), pregnancy smoking status (S12 Fig), or year of birth (S13 Fig).

Discussion

In this two-stage meta-analysis using IPD on 253,810 live-born singletons from 16 birth cohorts, we found a potentially important association in early infancy between GA and BMI, and in adolescence for the association of GA with odds of overweight. Difference in BMI z-score between categories of GA attenuated markedly after infancy throughout adolescence. A similar trend was observed for the association of GA with odds of overweight; however, by adolescence, increased odds of overweight was observed in very preterm compared with full term peers. Despite heterogeneity in cohort characteristics, our main findings were consistent across cohorts, and the supplementary analyses showed associations to be robust.

Previous studies [26,27,28,81,82] and a meta-analysis [35] have shown consistent results for the association between GA and BMI in childhood with lower BMI in preterm children compared with full term peers, although several methodological issues should be taken into account when interpreting these findings. In contrast, surprisingly few studies have examined the association of GA with later overweight, particularly in childhood.

Existing evidence for the association between GA and BMI rely on small sample sizes from different countries; different GA categorisation and reference group; and variations in use of BMI indices (z-scores or natural units, external or internal reference, IOTF or WHO reference). In our study, we observed a positive overall estimate for the association between GA and BMI in early infancy through mid-childhood with lower BMI z-score in very and late preterm compared to full term peers. In addition, we found age to be the main driver of between-study heterogeneity in early infancy suggesting that GA has a potentially important association in infancy. These findings are in line with descriptive results in infancy and early childhood from Australia [26] and Sweden [27]. In the Australian cohort, lower BMI z-scores were found among 225 extremely preterm compared with 253 term controls at both 2 and 5 years, while researchers in Sweden reported lower mean BMI z-scores at 2 and 5 years among 152 Swedish children born between 32 and 37 weeks compared with a large reference population. Our study showed a weaker association that most likely is explained by adjustment for confounders, but also methodological differences.

Our analyses revealed that the overall associations between GA and BMI attenuated in mid- and late childhood, but very and late preterm children remained at a lower BMI compared to their full term counterparts. This is supported by findings from studies in both Brazil and the United Kingdom across age 6 to 12 years [28,31,81]. By adolescence, we found no difference in BMI across categories of GA, and this is in line with previous findings from the study in Australia, and the two recent studies where preterm individuals in Brazil (≤33 weeks, 34 to 36 weeks) and the UK (≤25 weeks) reached similar BMI as their term counterparts at the age 18 to 19 years [26,28,31]. Hence, our study findings and previous evidence indicate that the overall association between GA and BMI attenuate through childhood with even the most preterm reaching similar BMI as their term counterparts by adolescence [20,26].

A rapid phase of growth has been proposed to evolve into increased susceptibility of later overweight [21,83,84,85], but only few studies have examined the relationship between GA and later overweight in childhood or adulthood [10,29,30,86]. The overall effect estimates from our main analysis showed a weak association between GA and overweight from early infancy through mid-childhood with only very preterm in mid-childhood being at lower odds of overweight than full term peers. In contrast, a cohort study from Chile based on 153,635 children aged 6 to 8 years reported that term children are a lower risk of overweight (OR 0.84 [95% CI: 0.79, 0.88]) than preterm peers (reference group, (≤37 weeks) [29]). However, as highlighted by the authors, a major limitation of their study was the lack of information on obstetric maternal characteristics and maternal prepregnancy BMI.

In accordance with a cohort study from the UK on 11,765 children aged 11 years [30], we found no difference in odds of overweight between preterm and full term children in late childhood (>9.0 to 14.0 years).

Our study extends previous research by examining the association between GA and overweight in adolescence and across key stages of growth development throughout childhood. Moreover, our study design and large sample size enables an examination of odds of overweight in preterm adolescents and provides insights about this association across a wide range of GA. This distinction between degrees of preterm births is important as shorter gestational duration is associated with increased risk of mortality, disability, and morbidity across the life span [87]. Also, considering preterm births as not being homogeneous in causes and consequences was highlighted by others [88,89] as an important approach when interpreting such results, but a major limitation in current evidence [6,7,34].

Our main analysis suggested that very preterm may have an increased odds of overweight in adolescence compared with full term peers. Despite heterogeneity in characteristics for the four cohorts (ALSPAC, DNBC, NFBC1986, and the Raine Study) included for this age-band, our supplementary analyses addressed robustness in the findings. Our results are further supported by findings from two comparable studies conducted in Finland and Australia, where an increased odds of overweight was reported in preterm individuals aged 23 and 35 years, respectively [86,90].

In summary, this study sheds new light on factors influencing BMI and risk of developing overweight from infancy through adolescence. Furthermore, adding to the evidence within the domain of developmental origins of health and disease (DOHaD) with studies mainly using birth weight as proxy of prematurity, we used information on actual length of gestation and across a wide range of GA [23,91]. Our analysis revealed that, although preterm infants are relatively small at birth, they reach similar BMI and odds of overweight as term peers in adolescence. The underlying mechanisms from the current observational data are unknown. However, in accordance with previous findings, our pattern of results suggests that preterm infants may be at an increased odds of overweight later in life, even though BMI in preterm and full term is similar. In addition, it should be noted that mediating exposures such as birth weight, congenital anomalies, and breast feeding practices may also affect the relationship between GA and later body size.

An important strength in the current study is the large sample size with information on more than 250,000 mother–child dyads from 16 prospective pregnancy and birth cohorts in Europe, North America, and Australasia. We used comprehensive obstetric and maternal data as well as multiple BMI measurements following birth through adolescence, which allowed us to adjust analyses. Additionally, the large sample size enabled us to assess associations successively using clinical categories of preterm birth to age 19 years. We also examined the robustness of our findings performing several sensitivity analyses. Furthermore, the federated analysis approach using DataSHIELD proves a key advantage since it enables identical and reproducible analysis across multiple cohorts [39,92,93].

The limitations include considerable variations in both measurement and availability of exposures, covariates, and outcomes. However, this was explored by meta-regressions on multiple covariates showing that study characteristics were independently associated with between-study heterogeneity only in the associations of GA with BMI. Age at measurement was the main contributor to heterogeneity in early infancy, but not in childhood and adolescence. This suggests that GA is important for BMI in early life but attenuates consistently as children get older. In late childhood and adolescence, maternal education and maternal smoking in pregnancy were independently associated with the observed heterogeneity. The method used to measure growth differed between cohorts, but was not explored any further, although it might be relevant [94].

Residual confounding may be another limitation in this study as the confounders are harmonised across studies, which gives the lowest common denominator. Also, several large cohorts (DNBC, MoBa, NFBC1986, the Raine study) had no available information on maternal ethnic background, which could bias our results. However, we had reports that the cohorts were homogeneous (>95% western) [45,52,53,56]; hence, we do not assume this affected our findings. Moreover, we did not deal with missingness as imputation and other methods were under development in DataSHIELD at time of the study, but we acknowledge that missing data on covariates may bias our findings, yet it is difficult to say in what direction.

As survival rates and postnatal treatment for preterm infants have improved in the last 20 years, while the global burden of obesity has increased [3,22,95], distribution of GA and proportion of overweight in the earliest cohorts are likely to differ from that in populations born more recently, with the former potentially being more selected and healthy later [34,96]. We found, however, no difference in the stratified analyses by year of birth (S7 and S13 Figs).

Our study is based on data from high-income countries; hence, the findings may not be generalisable to settings in low- and middle-income countries with higher estimates of preterm birth and rapid nutritional transition [4,95]. The proportion of preterm births was low in the participating cohorts and, despite being consistent with the global estimates for preterm births in Europe, one cohort recruited individuals in the third trimester, which may have led to exclusion of some individuals.

Lastly, for the objective of this study, we did not explore the role of mediating factors, such as size for GA, feeding practices, or puberty, although these may play a role in the associations observed [97,98,99].

In conclusion, based on data from infancy through adolescence in 16 cohort studies, we found that GA is important for growth in infancy, but the strength of association attenuated consistently with age. By adolescence, preterm individuals have on average a similar mean BMI to peers born at term.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Directed acyclic graph for the association between gestational age at birth and body size.

(TIF)

S2 Fig. Forest plot of cohort-specific associations between GA (in weeks) and BMI z-score.

Unadjusted and adjusted estimates with 95% CIs from study-specific linear regression models, where cohorts were assigned weights under the random-effects model to attain the overall estimates. The dot in the forest plot represents the adjusted estimates, while the whiskers span the 95% CI, whereas I2-statistics (I2), sample size (N), studies, and p-value (two-sided, <0.05) relate to adjusted estimates. Estimates reflect mean differences in BMI z-score per week increase in GA at birth in (A) early infancy (>0.0–0.5 years), (B) late infancy (>0.5–2.0 years), (C) early childhood (>2.0–5.0 years), (D) mid-childhood (>5.0–9.0 years), (E) late childhood (>9.0–14.0 years), and (F) adolescence (>14.0–19.0 years). Models are adjusted for sex of child, and the following maternal characteristics: age at child’s birth, education, height, prepregnancy BMI, smoking during pregnancy, parity, ethnic background, gestational diabetes and hypertension, and preeclampsia. Cohort-specific estimates were adjusted for the maximum available set of the confounding variables (see Table 1). BMI, body mass index; CI, confidence interval; GA, gestational age.

(TIF)

S3 Fig. Forest plot of ‘leave-one-out’ analysis for the association between GA (in weeks) and BMI z-score.

Overall adjusted estimates of BMI z-score with 95% CIs from study-specific linear regression models, where cohorts were assigned weights under the random-effects model to attain the estimate. The dot in the forest plot represents the adjusted estimates, while the whiskers span the 95% CI, whereas I2-statistics (I2), sample size (N), studies, and p-value (two-sided, <0.05) relate to adjusted estimates. Estimates reflect mean differences in BMI z-score per week increase in GA at birth in (A) early infancy (>0.0–0.5 years), (B) late infancy (>0.5–2.0 years), (C) early childhood (>2.0–5.0 years), (D) mid-childhood (>5.0–9.0 years), (E) late childhood (>9.0–14.0 years), and (F) adolescence (>14.0–19.0 years). Models are adjusted for sex of child, and the following maternal characteristics: age at child’s birth, education, height, prepregnancy BMI, smoking during pregnancy, parity, ethnic background, gestational diabetes and hypertension, and preeclampsia. Cohort-specific estimates were adjusted for the maximum available set of the confounding variables (see Table 1). BMI, body mass index; CI, confidence interval; GA, gestational age.

(TIF)

S4 Fig. Forest plot of associations between GA (in weeks) and BMI z-score by sex.

Overall adjusted estimates of BMI z-score with 95% CIs from study-specific linear regression models, where cohorts were assigned weights under the random-effects model to attain the estimate. The blue (male) and yellow (female) dots in the forest plot represent the adjusted estimates, while the whiskers span the 95% CI, whereas I2-statistics (I2), sample size (N), studies, and p-value (two-sided, <0.05) relate to adjusted estimates. Estimates reflect mean differences in BMI z-score per week increase in GA at birth in early infancy (>0.0–0.5 years), late infancy (>0.5–2.0 years), early childhood (>2.0–5.0 years), mid-childhood (>5.0–9.0 years), late childhood (>9.0–14.0 years), and adolescence (>14.0–19.0 years). Models are adjusted for sex of child, and the following maternal characteristics: age at child’s birth, education, height, prepregnancy BMI, smoking during pregnancy, parity, ethnic background, gestational diabetes and hypertension, and preeclampsia. Cohort-specific estimates were adjusted for the maximum available set of the confounding variables (see Table 1). BMI, body mass index; CI, confidence interval; GA, gestational age.

(TIF)

S5 Fig. Forest plot of associations between GA (in weeks) and BMI z-score by maternal education.

Overall adjusted estimates of BMI z-score with 95% CIs from study-specific linear regression models, where cohorts were assigned weights under the random-effects model to attain the estimate. The blue (high educational level) and yellow (low/medium educational level) dots in the forest plot represent the adjusted estimates, while the whiskers span the 95% CI, whereas I2-statistics (I2), sample size (N), studies, and p-value (two-sided, <0.05) relate to adjusted estimates. Estimates reflect mean differences in BMI z-score per week increase in GA at birth in early infancy (>0.0–0.5 years), late infancy (>0.5–2.0 years), early childhood (>2.0–5.0 years), mid-childhood (>5.0–9.0 years), late childhood (>9.0–14.0 years), and adolescence (>14.0–19.0 years). Models are adjusted for sex of child, and the following maternal characteristics: age at child’s birth, education, height, prepregnancy BMI, smoking during pregnancy, parity, ethnic background, gestational diabetes and hypertension, and preeclampsia. Cohort-specific estimates were adjusted for the maximum available set of the confounding variables (see Table 1). BMI, body mass index; CI, confidence interval; GA, gestational age.

(TIF)

S6 Fig. Forest plot of associations between GA (in weeks) and BMI z-score by maternal smoking in pregnancy.

Overall adjusted estimates of BMI z-score with 95% CIs from study-specific linear regression models, where cohorts were assigned weights under the random-effects model to attain the estimate. The blue (smoking in pregnancy) and yellow (no smoking in pregnancy) dots in the forest plot represent the adjusted estimates, while the whiskers span the 95% CI, whereas I2-statistics (I2), sample size (N), studies, and p-value (two-sided, <0.05) relate to adjusted estimates. Estimates reflect mean differences in BMI z-score per week increase in GA at birth in early infancy (>0.0–0.5 years), late infancy (>0.5–2.0 years), early childhood (>2.0–5.0 years), mid-childhood (>5.0–9.0 years), late childhood (>9.0–14.0 years), and adolescence (>14.0–19.0 years). Models are adjusted for sex of child, and the following maternal characteristics: age at child’s birth, education, height, prepregnancy BMI, smoking during pregnancy, parity, ethnic background, gestational diabetes and hypertension, and preeclampsia. Cohort-specific estimates were adjusted for the maximum available set of the confounding variables (see Table 1). BMI, body mass index; CI, confidence interval; GA, gestational age.

(TIF)

S7 Fig. Forest plot of associations between GA (in weeks) and BMI z-score by year of birth.

Overall adjusted estimates of BMI z-score with 95% CIs from study-specific linear regression models, where cohorts were assigned weights under the random-effects model to attain the estimate. The blue (<2001) and yellow (≥2001) dots in the forest plot represent the adjusted estimates, while the whiskers span the 95% CI, whereas I2-statistics (I2), sample size (N), studies, and p-value (two-sided, <0.05) relate to adjusted estimates. Estimates reflect mean differences in BMI z-score per week increase in GA at birth in early infancy (>0.0–0.5 years), late infancy (>0.5–2.0 years), early childhood (>2.0–5.0 years), mid-childhood (>5.0–9.0 years), late childhood (>9.0–14.0 years), and adolescence (>14.0–19.0 years). Models are adjusted for sex of child, and the following maternal characteristics: age at child’s birth, education, height, prepregnancy BMI, smoking during pregnancy, parity, ethnic background, gestational diabetes and hypertension, and preeclampsia. Cohort-specific estimates were adjusted for the maximum available set of the confounding variables (see Table 1). BMI, body mass index; CI, confidence interval; GA, gestational age.

(TIF)

S8 Fig. Forest plot of cohort-specific associations between GA (in weeks) and odds of overweight.

Unadjusted and adjusted ORs with 95% CIs from study-specific logistic regression models, where cohorts were assigned weights under the random-effects model to attain the overall estimates. The dot in the forest plot represents the adjusted OR, while the whiskers span the 95% CI, whereas I2-statistics (I2), sample size (N), studies, and p-value (two-sided, <0.05) relate to adjusted OR. Estimates reflect OR of overweight (vs. normal weight) per week increase in GA at birth in (A) early infancy (>0.0–0.5 years), (B) late infancy (>0.5–2.0 years), (C) early childhood (>2.0–5.0 years), (D) mid-childhood (>5.0–9.0 years), (E) late childhood (>9.0–14.0 years), and (F) adolescence (>14.0–19.0 years). Models are adjusted for sex of child, and the following maternal characteristics: age at child’s birth, education, height, prepregnancy BMI, smoking during pregnancy, parity, ethnic background, gestational diabetes and hypertension, and preeclampsia. Cohort-specific estimates were adjusted for the maximum available set of the confounding variables (see Table 1). BMI, body mass index; CI, confidence interval; GA, gestational age; OR, odds ratio.

(TIF)

S9 Fig. Forest plot of “leave-one-out” analysis for the association between GA (in weeks) and odds of overweight.

Adjusted ORs with 95% CIs from study-specific logistic regression models, where cohorts were assigned weights under the random-effects model to attain the overall estimates. The dot in the forest plot represents the adjusted OR, while the whiskers span the 95% CI, whereas I2-statistics (I2), sample size (N), studies, and p-value (two-sided, <0.05) relate to adjusted OR. Estimates reflect OR of overweight (vs. normal weight) per week increase in GA at birth in (A) early infancy (>0.0–0.5 years), (B) late infancy (>0.5–2.0 years), (C) early childhood (>2.0–5.0 years), (D) mid-childhood (>5.0–9.0 years), (E) late childhood (>9.0–14.0 years), and (F) adolescence (>14.0–19.0 years). Models are adjusted for sex of child, and the following maternal characteristics: age at child’s birth, education, height, prepregnancy BMI, smoking during pregnancy, parity, ethnic background, gestational diabetes and hypertension, and preeclampsia. Cohort-specific estimates were adjusted for the maximum available set of the confounding variables (see Table 1). BMI, body mass index; CI, confidence interval; GA, gestational age; OR, odds ratio.

(TIF)

S10 Fig. Forest plot of associations between GA (in weeks) and odds of overweight by sex.

Overall adjusted ORs of overweight with 95% CIs from study-specific linear regression models, where cohorts were assigned weights under the random-effects model to attain the OR. The blue (male) and yellow (female) dots in the forest plot represent the adjusted ORs, while the whiskers span the 95% CI, whereas I2-statistics (I2), sample size (N), studies, and p-value (two-sided, <0.05) relate to adjusted OR. Estimates reflect OR of overweight (vs. normal weight) per week increase in GA at birth in early infancy (>0.0–0.5 years), late infancy (>0.5–2.0 years), early childhood (>2.0–5.0 years), mid-childhood (>5.0–9.0 years), late childhood (>9.0–14.0 years), and adolescence (>14.0–19.0 years). Models are adjusted for sex of child, and the following maternal characteristics: age at child’s birth, education, height, prepregnancy BMI, smoking during pregnancy, parity, ethnic background, gestational diabetes and hypertension, and preeclampsia. Cohort-specific estimates were adjusted for the maximum available set of the confounding variables (see Table 1). BMI, body mass index; CI, confidence interval; GA, gestational age; OR, odds ratio.

(TIF)

S11 Fig. Forest plot of associations between GA (in weeks) and odds of overweight by maternal education.

Overall adjusted ORs of overweight with 95% CIs from study-specific linear regression models, where cohorts were assigned weights under the random-effects model to attain the OR. The blue (high educational level) and yellow (low/medium educational level) dots in the forest plot represents the adjusted OR, while the whiskers span the 95% CI, whereas I2-statistics (I2), sample size (N), studies, and p-value (two-sided, <0.05) relate to adjusted OR. Estimates reflect OR of overweight (vs. normal weight) per week increase in GA at birth in early infancy (>0.0–0.5 years), late infancy (>0.5–2.0 years), early childhood (>2.0–5.0 years), mid-childhood (>5.0–9.0 years), late childhood (>9.0–14.0 years), and adolescence (>14.0–19.0 years). Models are adjusted for sex of child, and the following maternal characteristics: age at child’s birth, education, height, prepregnancy BMI, smoking during pregnancy, parity, ethnic background, gestational diabetes and hypertension, and preeclampsia. Cohort-specific estimates were adjusted for the maximum available set of the confounding variables (see Table 1). BMI, body mass index; CI, confidence interval; GA, gestational age; OR, odds ratio.

(TIF)

S12 Fig. Forest plot of associations between GA (in weeks) and odds of overweight by maternal smoking in pregnancy.

Overall adjusted ORs of overweight with 95% CIs from study-specific linear regression models, where cohorts were assigned weights under the random-effects model to attain the OR. The blue (smoking in pregnancy) and yellow (no smoking in pregnancy) dots in the forest plot represents the adjusted OR, while the whiskers span the 95% CI, whereas I2-statistics (I2), sample size (N), studies, and p-value (two-sided, <0.05) relate to adjusted OR. Estimates reflect OR of overweight (vs. normal weight) per week increase in GA at birth in early infancy (>0.0–0.5 years), late infancy (>0.5–2.0 years), early childhood (>2.0–5.0 years), mid-childhood (>5.0–9.0 years), late childhood (>9.0–14.0 years), and adolescence (>14.0–19.0 years). Models are adjusted for sex of child, and the following maternal characteristics: age at child’s birth, education, height, prepregnancy BMI, smoking during pregnancy, parity, ethnic background, gestational diabetes and hypertension, and preeclampsia. Cohort-specific estimates were adjusted for the maximum available set of the confounding variables (see Table 1). BMI, body mass index; CI, confidence interval; GA, gestational age; OR, odds ratio.

(TIF)

S13 Fig. Forest plot of associations between GA (in weeks) and odds of overweight by year of birth.

Overall adjusted ORs of overweight with 95% CIs from study-specific linear regression models, where cohorts were assigned weights under the random-effects model to attain the OR. The blue (<2001) and yellow (≥2001) dots in the forest plot represents the adjusted OR, while the whiskers span the 95% CI, whereas I2-statistics (I2), sample size (N), studies, and p-value (two-sided, <0.05) relate to adjusted OR. Estimates reflect OR of overweight (vs. normal weight) per week increase in GA at birth in early infancy (>0.0–0.5 years), late infancy (>0.5–2.0 years), early childhood (>2.0–5.0 years), mid-childhood (>5.0–9.0 years), late childhood (>9.0–14.0 years), and adolescence (>14.0–19.0 years). Models are adjusted for sex of child, and the following maternal characteristics: age at child’s birth, education, height, prepregnancy BMI, smoking during pregnancy, parity, ethnic background, gestational diabetes and hypertension, and preeclampsia. Cohort-specific estimates were adjusted for the maximum available set of the confounding variables (see Table 1). BMI, body mass index; CI, confidence interval; GA, gestational age; OR, odds ratio.

(TIF)

S1 Table. Cohort-specific study characteristics and information on exposure and outcome measurements.

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Missing values in cohort-specific baseline characteristics.

(DOCX)

S3 Table. Results of individual variable meta-regression models showing values of β, se(β), and the significance of β for each study characteristic.

(DOCX)

S1 Text. Information about variable classification and coding.

(DOCX)

S1 Appendix. Cohort-specific sources of funding/support.

(DOCX)

S2 Appendix. Cohort-specific acknowledgments.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge everyone in LifeCycle and EUCAN-Connect who have supported and contributed to each cohort included in the study. In addition, acknowledgments are sent to the DataSHIELD team. Please see S2 Appendix for list of cohort-specific acknowledgments. Also, the authors would like to acknowledge Tanis Fenton for her contribution to this manuscript, and data curation for AOF.

Abbreviations

BMI

body mass index

CI

confidence interval

DOHaD

developmental origins of health and disease

GA

gestational age

IPD

individual participant data

OR

odds ratio

WHO

World Health Organization

Data Availability

The data used for this study is third-party data, and without legally permission of distribution or public sharing. Information about data access and governance for this study is explained in detail in a peer-reviewed scientific paper by Prof. Vincent Jaddoe et al (2020): “The LifeCycle Project‑EU Child Cohort Network: a federated analysis infrastructure and harmonized data of more than 250,000 children and parents”. The principal investigators or home institutions administer permission to the data for external researchers: hence, access to the data is conditional on reasonable request and with approval by each cohort. A description of the data set and third-party sources are listed in Supplementary Materials, and displayed online at the EU Child Cohort Variable Catalogue (https://data-catalogue.molgeniscloud.org/catalogue/catalogue/#/) and the Maelstrom Catalogue (https://www.maelstrom-research.org/page/catalogue). Please, for data request find below cohort-specific contact details (email address and/or web). ALSPAC, United Kingdom Email: alspac-data@bristol.ac.uk Web: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/alspac/researchers/access/ AOF, Canada Email: stough@ucalgary.ca Web: https://allourfamiliesstudy.com/data-access/, http://allourfamiliesstudy.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/AOF-Access-and-Acknowledgement-Guidelines-March-2017-Sec.pdf BiB, United Kingdom Email: borninbradford@bthft.nhs.uk Web: https://borninbradford.nhs.uk/research/how-to-access-data/ CHILD, Canada Email: child@mcmaster.ca Web: https://childstudy.ca/for-researchers/data-access/ DNBC, Denmark Email: amna@sund.ku.dk Web: https://www.dnbc.dk/access-to-dnbc-data EDEN, France Email: etude.eden@inserm.fr ELFE, France Email: contact@elfe-france.fr Web: https://www.elfe-france.fr/en/the-research/access-to-data-and-questionnaires/ G21, Portugal Email: info@geracao21.com, catia.ferreira@ispup.up.pt GECKO, The Netherlands Email: e.corpeleijn@umcg.nl Web: https://www.umcg.nl/-/medisch-wetenschappelijk-onderzoek/gecko GEN R, The Netherlands Email: v.jaddoe@erasmusmc.nl Web: https://generationr.nl/researchers/collaboration/ INMA, Spain Web: https://www.proyectoinma.org/ MoBa, Norway Email: jennifer.harris@fhi.no Web: http://www.fhi.no/moba NFBC1986, Finland Email: sylvain.sebert@oulu.fi Web: https://www.oulu.fi/en/university/faculties-and-units/faculty-medicine/northern-finland-birth-cohorts-and-arctic-biobank/nfbc-aineistopyynto NINFEA, Italy Email: info@progettoninfea.it, lorenzo.richiardi@unito.it Web: https://www.progettoninfea.it/index_en SWS, United Kingdom Email: sws@soton.ac.uk Web: https://www.mrc.soton.ac.uk/sws/ RAINE, Australia Email: raineadmin-sph@uwa.edu.au Web: https://rainestudy.org.au/information-for-researchers/available-data/.

Funding Statement

This collaborative project received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (Grant Agreement No. 733206 LifeCycle, Grand Recipient VWVJ; Grant Agreement No. 824989 EUCAN-Connect, Grand Recipient AMNA). Please, see S1 Appendix for list of cohort-specific funding/support. DAL is supported by the UK Medical Research Council (MC_UU_00011/6) and British Heart Foundation (CH/F/20/90003 and AA/18/7/34219). RCW is supported by UKRI Innovation Fellowship with Health Data Research UK [MR/S003959/1]. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Goldenberg RL, Culhane JF, Iams JD, Romero R. Epidemiology and causes of preterm birth. Lancet. 2008;371(9606):75–84. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60074-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Saigal S, Doyle LW. An overview of mortality and sequelae of preterm birth from infancy to adulthood. Lancet. 2008;371 9608):261–269. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60136-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Bick D. Born too soon: the global issue of preterm birth. Midwifery. 2012;28(4):341–342. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2012.06.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Chawanpaiboon S, Vogel JP, Moller AB, Lumbiganon P, Petzold M, Hogan D, et al. Global, regional, and national estimates of levels of preterm birth in 2014: a systematic review and modelling analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2019;7(1):e37–e46. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(18)30451-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Markopoulou P, Papanikolaou E, Analytis A, Zoumakis E, Siahanidou T. Preterm Birth as a Risk Factor for Metabolic Syndrome and Cardiovascular Disease in Adult Life: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Pediatr. 2019;210(69–80):e5. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2019.02.041 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Parkinson JR, Hyde MJ, Gale C, Santhakumaran S, Modi N. Preterm birth and the metabolic syndrome in adult life: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pediatrics. 2013;131(4):e1240–e1263. doi: 10.1542/peds.2012-2177 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Kajantie E, Strang-Karlsson S, Evensen KAI, Haaramo P. Adult outcomes of being born late preterm or early term—What do we know? Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2019;24(1):66–83. doi: 10.1016/j.siny.2018.11.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Johansson S, Iliadou A, Bergvall N, Tuvemo T, Norman M, Cnattingius S. Risk of high blood pressure among young men increases with the degree of immaturity at birth. Circulation. 2005;112(22):3430–3436. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.540906 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Lawlor DA, Hubinette A, Tynelius P, Leon DA, Smith GD, Rasmussen F. Associations of gestational age and intrauterine growth with systolic blood pressure in a family-based study of 386,485 men in 331,089 families. Circulation. 2007;115(5):562–568. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.646661 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Sipola-Leppanen M, Vaarasmaki M, Tikanmaki M, Matinolli HM, Miettola S, Hovi P, et al. Cardiometabolic risk factors in young adults who were born preterm. Am J Epidemiol. 2015;181(11):861–873. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwu443 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Sipola-Leppanen M, Vaarasmaki M, Tikanmaki M, Hovi P, Miettola S, Ruokonen A, et al. Cardiovascular risk factors in adolescents born preterm. Pediatrics. 2014;134(4):e1072–e1081. doi: 10.1542/peds.2013-4186 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Baird J, Jacob C, Barker M, Fall CH, Hanson M, Harvey NC, et al. Developmental Origins of Health and Disease: A Lifecourse Approach to the Prevention of Non-Communicable Diseases. Healthcare (Basel). 2017;5(1). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Gluckman PD, Hanson MA, Cooper C, Thornburg KL. Effect of in utero and early-life conditions on adult health and disease. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(1):61–73. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra0708473 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Hanson MA, Gluckman PD. Early developmental conditioning of later health and disease: physiology or pathophysiology? Physiol Rev. 2014;94(4):1027–1076. doi: 10.1152/physrev.00029.2013 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Kopec G, Shekhawat PS, Mhanna MJ. Prevalence of diabetes and obesity in association with prematurity and growth restriction. Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes. 2017;10:285–295. doi: 10.2147/DMSO.S115890 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Remacle C, Bieswal F, Reusens B. Programming of obesity and cardiovascular disease. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2004;28(Suppl 3):S46–S53. doi: 10.1038/sj.ijo.0802800 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Rowe DL, Derraik JG, Robinson E, Cutfield WS, Hofman PL. Preterm birth and the endocrine regulation of growth in childhood and adolescence. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 2011;75(5):661–665. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2265.2011.04116.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Barker DJ. Obesity and early life. Obes Rev. 2007;8(Suppl 1):45–49. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-789X.2007.00317.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Barker DJ. Adult consequences of fetal growth restriction. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2006;49(2):270–283. doi: 10.1097/00003081-200606000-00009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Euser AM, de Wit CC, Finken MJ, Rijken M, Wit JM. Growth of preterm born children. Horm Res. 2008;70(6):319–328. doi: 10.1159/000161862 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Griffin IJ, Cooke RJ. Development of whole body adiposity in preterm infants. Early Hum Dev. 2012;88(Suppl 1):S19–S24. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2011.12.023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.WHO European Regional Obesity Report. Copenhagen. 2022;2022:2022.
  • 23.Hollanders JJ, van der Pal SM, van Dommelen P, Rotteveel J, Finken MJJ. Growth pattern and final height of very preterm vs. very low birth weight infants. Pediatr Res. 2017;82(2):317–323. doi: 10.1038/pr.2017.63 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Adams M, Andersen AM, Andersen PK, Haig D, Henriksen TB, Hertz-Picciotto I, et al. Sostrup statement on low birthweight. Int J Epidemiol. 2003;32(5):884–885. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyg271 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Ananth CV, Schisterman EF. Confounding, causality, and confusion: the role of intermediate variables in interpreting observational studies in obstetrics. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;217(2):167–175. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2017.04.016 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Roberts G, Cheong J, Opie G, Carse E, Davis N, Duff J, et al. Growth of extremely preterm survivors from birth to 18 years of age compared with term controls. Pediatrics. 2013;131(2):e439–e445. doi: 10.1542/peds.2012-1135 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Roswall J, Karlsson AK, Allvin K, Tangen GA, Bergman S, Niklasson A, et al. Preschool children born moderately preterm have increased waist circumference at two years of age despite low body mass index. Acta Paediatr. 2012;101(11):1175–1181. doi: 10.1111/j.1651-2227.2012.02819.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Bortolotto CC, Santos IS, Dos Santos VJ, Matijasevich A, Barros AJD, Barros FC, et al. Prematurity and body composition at 6, 18, and 30 years of age: Pelotas (Brazil) 2004, 1993, and 1982 birth cohorts. BMC Public Health. 2021;21(1):321. doi: 10.1186/s12889-021-10368-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Mardones F, Villarroel L, Karzulovic L, Barja S, Arnaiz P, Taibo M, et al. Association of perinatal factors and obesity in 6- to 8-year-old Chilean children. Int J Epidemiol. 2008;37(4):902–910. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyn133 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Massion S, Wickham S, Pearce A, Barr B, Law C, Taylor-Robinson D. Exploring the impact of early life factors on inequalities in risk of overweight in UK children: findings from the UK Millennium Cohort Study. Arch Dis Child. 2016;101(8):724–730. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2015-309465 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Ni Y, Beckmann J, Gandhi R, Hurst JR, Morris JK, Marlow N. Growth to early adulthood following extremely preterm birth: the EPICure study. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2020;105(5):496–503. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2019-318192 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Bocca-Tjeertes IF, Kerstjens JM, Reijneveld SA, de Winter AF, Bos AF. Growth and predictors of growth restraint in moderately preterm children aged 0 to 4 years. Pediatrics. 2011;128(5):e1187–e1194. doi: 10.1542/peds.2010-3781 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Dietz WH. Critical periods in childhood for the development of obesity. Am J Clin Nutr. 1994;59(5):955–959. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/59.5.955 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Cooper R, Atherton K, Power C. Gestational age and risk factors for cardiovascular disease: evidence from the 1958 British birth cohort followed to mid-life. Int J Epidemiol. 2009;38(1):235–244. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyn154 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Andraweera PH, Condon B, Collett G, Gentilcore S, Lassi ZS. Cardiovascular risk factors in those born preterm—systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dev Orig Health Dis. 2021;12(4):539–554. doi: 10.1017/S2040174420000914 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Yoshida-Montezuma Y, Stone E, Iftikhar S, De Rubeis V, Andreacchi AT, Keown-Stoneman C, et al. The association between late preterm birth and cardiometabolic conditions across the life course: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2022;36(2):264–275. doi: 10.1111/ppe.12831 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Lurbe E, Ingelfinger J. Developmental and Early Life Origins of Cardiometabolic Risk Factors: Novel Findings and Implications. Hypertension. 2021;77(2):308–318. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.120.14592 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Jaddoe VWV, Felix JF, Andersen AN, Charles MA, Chatzi L, Corpeleijn E, et al. The LifeCycle Project-EU Child Cohort Network: a federated analysis infrastructure and harmonized data of more than 250,000 children and parents. Eur J Epidemiol. 2020;35(7):709–724. doi: 10.1007/s10654-020-00662-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Pinot de Moira A, Haakma S, Strandberg-Larsen K, van Enckevort E, Kooijman M, Cadman T, et al. The EU Child Cohort Network’s core data: establishing a set of findable, accessible, interoperable and re-usable (FAIR) variables. Eur J Epidemiol. 2021;36(5):565–580. doi: 10.1007/s10654-021-00733-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.EUCAN-Connect. A federated FAIR platform enabling large-scale analysis of high-value cohort data connecting Europe and Canada in personalized health. Available from: https://eucanconnect.com/. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Fraser A, Macdonald-Wallis C, Tilling K, Boyd A, Golding J, Davey Smith G, et al. Cohort Profile: the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children: ALSPAC mothers cohort. Int J Epidemiol. 2013;42(1):97–110. doi: 10.1093/ije/dys066 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Tough SC, McDonald SW, Collisson BA, Graham SA, Kehler H, Kingston D, et al. Cohort Profile: The All Our Babies pregnancy cohort (AOB). Int J Epidemiol. 2017;46(5):1389–90k. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyw363 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Wright J, Small N, Raynor P, Tuffnell D, Bhopal R, Cameron N, et al. Cohort Profile: the Born in Bradford multi-ethnic family cohort study. Int J Epidemiol. 2013;42(4):978–991. doi: 10.1093/ije/dys112 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Subbarao P, Anand SS, Becker AB, Befus AD, Brauer M, Brook JR, et al. The Canadian Healthy Infant Longitudinal Development (CHILD) Study: examining developmental origins of allergy and asthma. Thorax. 2015;70(10):998–1000. doi: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2015-207246 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Olsen J, Melbye M, Olsen SF, Sorensen TI, Aaby P, Andersen AM, et al. The Danish National Birth Cohort—its background, structure and aim. Scand J Public Health. 2001;29(4):300–7. doi: 10.1177/14034948010290040201 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Heude B, Forhan A, Slama R, Douhaud L, Bedel S, Saurel-Cubizolles MJ, et al. Cohort Profile: The EDEN mother-child cohort on the prenatal and early postnatal determinants of child health and development. Int J Epidemiol. 2016;45(2):353–363. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyv151 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Charles MA, Thierry X, Lanoe JL, Bois C, Dufourg MN, Popa R, et al. Cohort Profile: The French national cohort of children (ELFE): birth to 5 years. Int J Epidemiol. 2020;49(2):368–9j. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyz227 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Correia S, Rodrigues T, Barros H. Socioeconomic variations in female fertility impairment: a study in a cohort of Portuguese mothers. BMJ Open. 2014;4(1):e003985. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003985 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.L’Abee C, Sauer PJ, Damen M, Rake JP, Cats H, Stolk RP. Cohort Profile: the GECKO Drenthe study, overweight programming during early childhood. Int J Epidemiol. 2008;37(3):486–489. doi: 10.1093/ije/dym218 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Jaddoe VW, Mackenbach JP, Moll HA, Steegers EA, Tiemeier H, Verhulst FC, et al. The Generation R Study: Design and cohort profile. Eur J Epidemiol. 2006;21(6):475–484. doi: 10.1007/s10654-006-9022-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Guxens M, Ballester F, Espada M, Fernandez MF, Grimalt JO, Ibarluzea J, et al. Cohort Profile: the INMA—INfancia y Medio Ambiente—(Environment and Childhood) Project. Int J Epidemiol. 2012;41(4):930–40. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyr054 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Magnus P, Birke C, Vejrup K, Haugan A, Alsaker E, Daltveit AK, et al. Cohort Profile Update: The Norwegian Mother and Child Cohort Study (MoBa). Int J Epidemiol. 2016;45(2):382–388. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyw029 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Jarvelin MR, Hartikainen-Sorri AL, Rantakallio P. Labour induction policy in hospitals of different levels of specialisation. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1993;100(4):310–315. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1993.tb12971.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Jarvelin MR, Elliott P, Kleinschmidt I, Martuzzi M, Grundy C, Hartikainen AL, et al. Ecological and individual predictors of birthweight in a northern Finland birth cohort 1986. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 1997;11 (3):298–312. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3016.1997.tb00007.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.University of Oulu. Northern Finland Birth Cohort 1986. University of Oulu. [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Richiardi L, Baussano I, Vizzini L, Douwes J, Pearce N, Merletti F, et al. Feasibility of recruiting a birth cohort through the Internet: the experience of the NINFEA cohort. Eur J Epidemiol. 2007;22(12):831–837. doi: 10.1007/s10654-007-9194-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.McKnight CM, Newnham JP, Stanley FJ, Mountain JA, Landau LI, Beilin LJ, et al. Birth of a cohort—the first 20 years of the Raine study. Med J Aust. 2012;197(11):608–10. doi: 10.5694/mja12.10698 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Inskip HM, Godfrey KM, Robinson SM, Law CM, Barker DJ, Cooper C, et al. Cohort profile: The Southampton Women’s Survey. Int J Epidemiol. 2006;35(1):42–48. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyi202 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Doiron D, Marcon Y, Fortier I, Burton P, Ferretti V. Software Application Profile: Opal and Mica: open-source software solutions for epidemiological data management, harmonization and dissemination. Int J Epidemiol. 2017;46(5):1372–1378. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyx180 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Swertz MA, Dijkstra M, Adamusiak T, van der Velde JK, Kanterakis A, Roos ET, et al. The MOLGENIS toolkit: rapid prototyping of biosoftware at the push of a button. BMC Bioinformatics. 2010;11(Suppl 12):S12. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-11-S12-S12 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Swertz MA, Jansen RC. Beyond standardization: dynamic software infrastructures for systems biology. Nat Rev Genet. 2007;8(3):235–243. doi: 10.1038/nrg2048 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.van der Velde KJ, Imhann F, Charbon B, Pang C, van Enckevort D, Slofstra M, et al. MOLGENIS research: advanced bioinformatics data software for non-bioinformaticians. Bioinformatics. 2019;35(6):1076–1078. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bty742 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Budin-Ljosne I, Burton P, Isaeva J, Gaye A, Turner A, Murtagh MJ, et al. DataSHIELD: an ethically robust solution to multiple-site individual-level data analysis. Public Health Genomics. 2015;18 (2):87–96. doi: 10.1159/000368959 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Gaye A, Marcon Y, Isaeva J, LaFlamme P, Turner A, Jones EM, et al. DataSHIELD: taking the analysis to the data, not the data to the analysis. Int J Epidemiol. 2014;43(6):1929–1944. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyu188 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Wilson RCBOW, Avraam D, Baker J, Tedds J, Turner A, Murtagh M, et al. DataSHIELD–moving in new directions and dimensions. Data Sci J. 2017;16. [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Burke DL, Ensor J, Riley RD. Meta-analysis using individual participant data: one-stage and two-stage approaches, and why they may differ. Stat Med. 2017;36(5):855–875. doi: 10.1002/sim.7141 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Gill JV, Boyle EM. Outcomes of infants born near term. Arch Dis Child. 2017;102(2):194–198. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2015-309584 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Woo JG, Daniels SR. Assessment of Body Mass Index in Infancy: It Is Time to Revise Our Guidelines. J Pediatr. 2019;204:10–11. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2018.09.025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Vidmar SIC, Tim J, Pan H. Standardizing anthropometric measures in children and adolescents with functions for egen: Update. Stata J. 2013;13(2):366–378. [Google Scholar]
  • 70.de Onis M, Lobstein T. Defining obesity risk status in the general childhood population: which cut-offs should we use? Int J Pediatr Obes. 2010;5(6):458–460. doi: 10.3109/17477161003615583 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.de Onis M, Onyango AW, Borghi E, Siyam A, Nishida C, Siekmann J. Development of a WHO growth reference for school-aged children and adolescents. Bull World Health Organ. 2007;85(9):660–667. doi: 10.2471/blt.07.043497 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Statistics: UIf. International Standard Classification of Education ISCED 2011. Montréal; 2012.
  • 73.Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JP, Rothstein HR. A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods. 2010;1(2):97–111. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.12 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327(7414):557–560. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Hastie T, Tibshirani R, Friedman J. Model Assessment and Selection. The elements of statistical learning: Data mining, inference, and prediction. 6th ed. New York: Springer; 2001. p. 219–60. [Google Scholar]
  • 76.R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. 2014.
  • 77.Viechtbauer W. Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package. J Stat Softw. 2010;36(3). [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Doiron D, Burton P, Marcon Y, Gaye A, Wolffenbuttel BHR, Perola M, et al. Data harmonization and federated analysis of population-based studies: the BioSHaRE project. Emerg Themes Epidemiol. 2013;10(1):12. doi: 10.1186/1742-7622-10-12 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Bamber D, Collins HE, Powell C, Goncalves GC, Johnson S, Manktelow B, et al. Development of a data classification system for preterm birth cohort studies: the RECAP Preterm project. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2022;22(1):8. doi: 10.1186/s12874-021-01494-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.InterConnect. Global Data for Diabetes and Obesity Research 2022. Available from: https://www.mrc-epid.cam.ac.uk/interconnect/.
  • 81.Fewtrell MS, Lucas A, Cole TJ, Wells JC. Prematurity and reduced body fatness at 8–12 y of age. Am J Clin Nutr. 2004;80(2):436–440. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/80.2.436 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Ni Y, Beckmann J, Hurst JR, Morris JK, Marlow N. Size at birth, growth trajectory in early life, and cardiovascular and metabolic risks in early adulthood: EPICure study. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2021;106(2):149–155. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2020-319328 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Pico C, Palou A. Perinatal programming of obesity: an introduction to the topic. Front Physiol. 2013;4:255. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2013.00255 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Ong KK, Dunger DB. Perinatal growth failure: the road to obesity, insulin resistance and cardiovascular disease in adults. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2002;16(2):191–207. doi: 10.1053/beem.2002.0195 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Ong KK, Loos RJ. Rapid infancy weight gain and subsequent obesity: systematic reviews and hopeful suggestions. Acta Paediatr. 2006;95(8):904–908. doi: 10.1080/08035250600719754 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Mathai S, Derraik JG, Cutfield WS, Dalziel SR, Harding JE, Biggs J, et al. Increased adiposity in adults born preterm and their children. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(11):e81840. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0081840 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Blencowe H, Cousens S, Oestergaard MZ, Chou D, Moller AB, Narwal R, et al. National, regional, and worldwide estimates of preterm birth rates in the year 2010 with time trends since 1990 for selected countries: a systematic analysis and implications. Lancet. 2012;379(9832):2162–2172. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60820-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Villar J, Papageorghiou AT, Knight HE, Gravett MG, Iams J, Waller SA, et al. The preterm birth syndrome: a prototype phenotypic classification. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;206(2):119–123. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2011.10.866 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.McElrath TF, Hecht JL, Dammann O, Boggess K, Onderdonk A, Markenson G, et al. Pregnancy disorders that lead to delivery before the 28th week of gestation: an epidemiologic approach to classification. Am J Epidemiol. 2008;168(9):980–989. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwn202 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Sipola-Leppanen M, Kajantie E. Should we assess cardiovascular risk in young adults born preterm? Curr Opin Lipidol. 2015;26(4):282–287. doi: 10.1097/MOL.0000000000000190 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Gluckman PD, Buklijas T., Hanson M.A. The Developmental Origins of Health and Disease (DOHaD) concept: past, present and future. In: Rosenfeld CS, editor. The Epigenome and Developmental Origins of Health and Disease: Academic Press; 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Jones EMSN, Gaye A, Laflamme P, Burton PR. Combined analysis of correlated data when data cannot be pooled. Stat. 2013;2. [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Jones EMSN, Masca N, Wallace S, Murtagh MJ, Burton PR. DataSHIELD–shared individual-level analysis without sharing data: a biostatistical perspec-tive. Nor J Epidemiol. 2012;21:231–239. [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Connor Gorber S, Tremblay M, Moher D, Gorber B. A comparison of direct vs. self-report measures for assessing height, weight and body mass index: a systematic review. Obes Rev. 2007;8(4):307–326. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-789X.2007.00347.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Collaboration NCDRF. Worldwide trends in body-mass index, underweight, overweight, and obesity from 1975 to 2016: a pooled analysis of 2416 population-based measurement studies in 128.9 million children, adolescents, and adults. Lancet. 2017;390(10113):2627–2642. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Reilly JJ, El-Hamdouchi A, Diouf A, Monyeki A, Somda SA. Determining the worldwide prevalence of obesity. Lancet. 2018;391(10132):1773–4. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30794-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 97.James E, Wood CL, Nair H, Williams TC. Preterm birth and the timing of puberty: a systematic review. BMC Pediatr. 2018;18(1):3. doi: 10.1186/s12887-017-0976-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 98.Cai L, Tao J, Li X, Lin L, Ma J, Jing J, et al. Association between the full range of birth weight and childhood weight status: by gestational age. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2019;73(8):1141–8. doi: 10.1038/s41430-018-0343-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 99.Horta BL, Rollins N, Dias MS, Garcez V, Perez-Escamilla R. Systematic review and meta-analysis of breastfeeding and later overweight or obesity expands on previous study for World Health Organization. Acta Paediatr. 2023;112(1):34–41. doi: 10.1111/apa.16460 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Caitlin Moyer

27 May 2022

Dear Dr Lerbech Vinther,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled "Gestational age at birth and body size from infancy through adolescence: findings from analyses of individual data on 253,810 singletons in 16 birth cohort studies" for consideration by PLOS Medicine.

Your manuscript has now been evaluated by the PLOS Medicine editorial staff and I am writing to let you know that we would like to send your submission out for external peer review.

However, before we can send your manuscript to reviewers, we need you to complete your submission by providing the metadata that is required for full assessment. To this end, please login to Editorial Manager where you will find the paper in the 'Submissions Needing Revisions' folder on your homepage. Please click 'Revise Submission' from the Action Links and complete all additional questions in the submission questionnaire.

Please re-submit your manuscript within two working days, i.e. by May 31 2022 11:59PM.

Login to Editorial Manager here: https://www.editorialmanager.com/pmedicine

Once your full submission is complete, your paper will undergo a series of checks in preparation for peer review. Once your manuscript has passed all checks it will be sent out for review.

Feel free to email us at plosmedicine@plos.org if you have any queries relating to your submission.

Kind regards,

Caitlin Moyer, Ph.D.

Associate Editor

PLOS Medicine

Decision Letter 1

Philippa Dodd

9 Nov 2022

Dear Dr. Lerbech Vinther,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Gestational age at birth and body size from infancy through adolescence: findings from analyses of individual data on 253,810 singletons in 16 birth cohort studies" (PMEDICINE-D-22-01655R1) for consideration at PLOS Medicine.

Your paper was evaluated by a senior editor and discussed among all the editors here. It was also discussed with an academic editor with relevant expertise, and sent to independent reviewers, including a statistical reviewer. The reviews are appended at the bottom of this email and any accompanying reviewer attachments can be seen via the link below:

[LINK]

In light of these reviews, I am afraid that we will not be able to accept the manuscript for publication in the journal in its current form, but we would like to consider a revised version that addresses the reviewers' and editors' comments. Obviously we cannot make any decision about publication until we have seen the revised manuscript and your response, and we plan to seek re-review by one or more of the reviewers.

In revising the manuscript for further consideration, your revisions should address the specific points made by each reviewer and the editors. Please also check the guidelines for revised papers at http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/revising-your-manuscript for any that apply to your paper. In your rebuttal letter you should indicate your response to the reviewers' and editors' comments, the changes you have made in the manuscript, and include either an excerpt of the revised text or the location (eg: page and line number) where each change can be found. Please submit a clean version of the paper as the main article file; a version with changes marked should be uploaded as a marked up manuscript.

In addition, we request that you upload any figures associated with your paper as individual TIF or EPS files with 300dpi resolution at resubmission; please read our figure guidelines for more information on our requirements: http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/figures. While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the PACE digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at PLOSMedicine@plos.org.

We expect to receive your revised manuscript by Nov 30 2022 11:59PM. Please email us (plosmedicine@plos.org) if you have any questions or concerns.

***Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.***

We ask every co-author listed on the manuscript to fill in a contributing author statement, making sure to declare all competing interests. If any of the co-authors have not filled in the statement, we will remind them to do so when the paper is revised. If all statements are not completed in a timely fashion this could hold up the re-review process. If new competing interests are declared later in the revision process, this may also hold up the submission. Should there be a problem getting one of your co-authors to fill in a statement we will be in contact. YOU MUST NOT ADD OR REMOVE AUTHORS UNLESS YOU HAVE ALERTED THE EDITOR HANDLING THE MANUSCRIPT TO THE CHANGE AND THEY SPECIFICALLY HAVE AGREED TO IT. You can see our competing interests policy here: http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/competing-interests.

Please use the following link to submit the revised manuscript:

https://www.editorialmanager.com/pmedicine/

Your article can be found in the "Submissions Needing Revision" folder.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Please ensure that the paper adheres to the PLOS Data Availability Policy (see http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/data-availability), which requires that all data underlying the study's findings be provided in a repository or as Supporting Information. For data residing with a third party, authors are required to provide instructions with contact information for obtaining the data. PLOS journals do not allow statements supported by "data not shown" or "unpublished results." For such statements, authors must provide supporting data or cite public sources that include it.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Sincerely,

Philippa Dodd, MBBS MRCP PhD

PLOS Medicine

plosmedicine.org

-----------------------------------------------------------

Requests from the editors:

Please address all editor and reviewer comments below in full

COMMENTS FROM THE ACADEMIC EDITOR

I agree to the authors statement that they should not adjust for birth weight, since this is on the causal pathway.

But maybe they should comment on why they don't analyze whether the associations partly are explained by small-for gestational age at birth, given available evidence within the DOHaD paradigm on intrauterine growth restriction and later nutritional status and health?

The included studies all represent high-income settings. It would be valuable to get comments on the limitation that low-or middle-income settings with a rapid nutritional transition are not represented, and what potential consequences this may have for the findings.

GENERAL

Please report your IPD MA according to the PRISMA guidelines provided at the EQUATOR site. http://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/prisma/

Please provide the completed PRISMA checklist. When completing the checklist, please use section and paragraph numbers, rather than page numbers. Please add the following statement, or similar, to the Methods: "This study is reported as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline (S1 Checklist)."

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Please revise your data availability statement. Referring to another published manuscript regarding data access will not suffice.

PLOS Medicine requires that the de-identified data underlying the specific results in a published article be made available, without restrictions on access, in a public repository or as Supporting Information at the time of article publication, provided it is legal and ethical to do so. Please see the policy at http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/data-availability and FAQs at http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/data-availability#loc-faqs-for-data-policy

For each data source used in your study:

a) If the data are freely or publicly available, note this and state the location of the data: within the paper, in Supporting Information files, or in a public repository (include the DOI or accession number).

b) If the data are owned by a third party but freely available upon request, please note this and state the owner of the data set and contact information for data requests (web or email address). Note that a study author cannot be the contact person for the data.

c) If the data are not freely available, please describe briefly the ethical, legal, or contractual restriction that prevents you from sharing it. Please also include an appropriate contact (web or email address) for inquiries (again, this cannot be a study author).

TITLE

Please revise your title according to PLOS Medicine’s style. Your title must be nondeclarative and not a question. It should begin with main concept if possible. "Effect of" should be used only if causality can be inferred, i.e., for an RCT. Please place the study design ("A randomized controlled trial," "A retrospective study," "A modelling study," etc.) in the subtitle (ie, after a colon).

ABSTRACT

Please report your abstract according to PRISMA for abstracts, following the PLOS Medicine abstract structure (Background, Methods and Findings, Conclusions) http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001419

Abstract methods and findings:

Please provide details of the process of selection for the 16 population cohort studies included in your study - as you have done in main methods section

Please provide data sources and eligibility criteria.

Please provide dates between which the 16 included studies were published

Please include the important dependent variables that are adjusted for in the analyses

Please quantify the main results p-values as well as with 95% CIs

Please define GA at first use

Please define OR and 95% CI at first use

In the last sentence of the Abstract Methods and Findings section, please describe the main limitation(s) of the study's methodology.

Abstract conclusions:

Please emphasize what is new without overstating your conclusions

AUTHOR SUMMARY

At this stage, we ask that you include a short, non-technical Author Summary of your research to make findings accessible to a wide audience that includes both scientists and non-scientists. The Author Summary should immediately follow the Abstract in your revised manuscript. This text is subject to editorial change and should be distinct from the scientific abstract. Please see our author guidelines for more information: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/revising-your-manuscript#loc-author-summary

METHODS and RESULTS

We ask the following of all authors who submit a SR/MA, some may not apply to your IPD MA. Please respond in full to the below points to help facilitate and maximize transparency of data reporting. In any instance(s) where you are unable to respond to the request, please clearly state the reason(s) why not:

• Please update your included studies to the present time

• Please evaluate study quality and risk of bias

• Please evaluate evidence of publication bias

Please provide dates between which the 16 included studies were published (as for the abstract).

Please provide the actual numbers of events for the outcomes, not just summary statistics or ORs.

Please present numerators and denominators for percentages

Where relevant, where you report 95% CIs, please also report p-values, including in the tables of the main manuscript and supplementary files. When a p-value is given please also provide the statistical test used to determine it. Please specify the significance level used (eg, P<0.05, two-sided). Please do not report p=0.000; report as p < 0.001

How was “maternal ethnicity” defined and by whom? Why was ethnicity considered important in this study and what it is believed to represent?

Please update your ethics statement and include details of individual study ethical approval as a paragraph and not a list, in the main manuscript and not in the supplementary files. Please include in each case whether consent was written or oral.

FIGURES & TABLES

Where you present adjusted analyses, please also present unadjusted analyses including in the supplementary figures.

Please also include p-values where you report 95% CIs including supplementary figures

Please indicate, in each figure captions what the dot and whiskers represent in the forest plots

Please ensure that all abbreviations e.g. BMI and CI are defined within each figure caption in the main manuscript figures and supplementary figures.

Table 3: in the figure caption, please define BMI

Table S4: please define β and β (se) in the caption

Please ensure that any colours you use in the figures are accessible to those with colour blindness (i.e. avoid the use of green and/or red)

DISCUSSION

Please remove sub-headings from the discussion, including that which depicts the conclusions, such that the discussion reads as one continuous piece of prose.

Please remove the funding statement and conflict of interest statement form the end of the main manuscript and include only in the submission form.

REFERENCES

Please see our website for reference guidelines here: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/submission-guidelines#loc-references

Citations should be placed within square parentheses preceding punctuation. Where more than one article is cited please separate the citations with a comma and no spaces as follows: [1,2,3,4] or [1-3,5,7]

Journal name abbreviations should be those found in the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) databases.

In the reference list please ensure no more than 6 author names are listed followed by et al. where more than 6 co-authors contribute to the study.

Comments from the reviewers:

Reviewer #1: The authors investigated the association of GA with BMI z-score and odd of overweight from infancy through adolescence. They found interesting results that higher GA is important for higher BMI in infancy, while the association attenuate with age and preterm children have a similar mean BMI to those born term.

Major points

・I could not understand how you calculated BMI z-score during infancy as in references (68) and (69) because there was no BMI z-score data for under five years.

・I think you should add the data of small for gestational age at birth and analyze the influence of SGA.

Reviewer #2: This is a well-conducted study on the association between gestational age at birth and body size from infancy to adolescence in 16 birth cohort studies. The study design, datasets, statistical methods and analyses, and presentation (tables and figures) and interpretation of the results are mostly adequate. However, there are still a few major issues needing attention.

1) Year of birth. From Table 1 we can see the year of birth ranges from 1985 to 2017 - across 33 years for the 16 cohort studies. This big time difference needs to be addressed in the analyses as the landscape of perinatal mortality, morbidity and healthcare has changed a lot over time. However, year of birth was not adjusted at all in any of the analyses in the paper which is inadequate. Firstly, year of birth need be adjusted in all the analyses; secondly, analyses such as meta regression on whether this is a time trend of the results are needed.

2) Interpretation of results for adolescence. One of the key conclusions in the abstract is "By adolescence, preterm children have on average a similar mean BMI to those born term". However, as shown in figure 2 (also figure 1), there are only 4 studies included in the analysis for adolescent outcomes as compared to 16 or so studies for analyses of earlier years' outcomes, therefore the sample size is substantially reduced for the analyses for this adolescent category, which may impact on the statistical significance of the results. This issue happens to all the analyses for the adolescence in the paper. For example, in figure 2, the no difference in mean BMI between preterm and term for adolescence may be due to the very wide 95% CIs caused by smaller sample size so that the results might be inconclusive due to uncertainty. Overall, this is a limitation of the study and the results need to be read with caution.

3) Missing data. The missing percentages are shown in S3 Table and we can see some studies have high missing rates in some variables. It looks like the authors have used available data for analyses. Have the authors dealt with the missing data in any way? If not, what are the impact and limitaion to the results caused by missing data potentially?

4) 'Leave one out' analysis is a good option for sensitivity analysis. The results are shown in S2 figure but a bit difficult to follow. For example, in S2 figure A, what's estimate for each cohort study? Does it mean leave that named study out? Basically, I'd like to see the results without the BIB study from the UK as it shows very different characteristics and outcomes (and also missing data) from the others as shown in table 1 and S3.

Reviewer #3: This is an important study using data from multiple cohorts addressing the association between gestational age and later BMI. The paper is well-written, and the methodology is fine.

I have several comments:

1. The ethical paragraph is too brief. In fact, the authors only refer to the supplements for a description about the MREC/IRB approval and the consent procedure of each study. This is insufficient. The ethical paragraph should describe the grounds for allowance of data sharing with an international consortium. More specifically, did parents give written informed consent for data sharing, or was a waiver of consent for data sharing provided (by the local MREC/IRB or the local privacy officer) under the assumption that data could impossibly identify individual subjects (eg, due to the large sample size, sharing of minimal data)? In this regard, it is also important to clarify who was the receiving party.

2. I would be more careful with the conclusion that "by adolescence, preterm children have on average a similar mean BMI to those born full term". There is no follow-up beyond 19 years, implicating that the observed catch-up in BMI after prematurity, as observed at age categories 9-14 and 14-19, might be determined by earlier pubertal timing. There is some evidence suggesting that children born preterm have an earlier onset of pubertal growth velocity (Wehkalampi, et all. JCEM 2011), although Tanner pubertal stages and menarcheal age are generally age-appropriate (Ford, et al. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2000; Peralta-Carcelen, et al. J Pediatr 2001; Hack, et al. Pediatrics 2003; Saigal, et al. Pediatr Res 2006). The authors should add to the Discussion that pubertal timing might play a role in the associations observed.

3. Limitations are generally well acknowledged, but in view of my previous comment some issues should be added to this section, including (1) the lack of follow-up extending into adulthood, (2) the low proportion of preterm born children, and (3) the lack of information on puberty status (at least for the age categories 9-14 and 14-19).

4. I am pleased to read that the authors clearly state in the Abstract and in the Introduction that birth weight cannot be used as a proxy for gestational age, a mistake that has been made by many previous studies, eg, due to lack of accurate gestational age determination in older cohorts. It would be nice if the authors could place their findings into (historical) context in the Discussion.

Reviewer #4: Summary and Recommendation:

1) This study provides a novel approach to analyzing a unique dataset from the EU Child Cohort Network to investigate the relationship of gestational age/prematurity to later body size from infancy through adolescence. By including individual data on 253,810 children from 16 cohorts across a wide range of gestational ages and follow-up ages and by controlling for covariates and assessing heterogeneity, this study aims to overcome a number of methodological limitations of prior published studies, reviews and meta-analyses. The result is a robust evaluation of a large and diverse population, though it is still limited by a number of factors, including those which the authors point out as well as a number of other issues that need to be further addressed.

2) The authors employ a linear regression model to exam the associations of GA in weeks and in clinical categories (5 groups ranging from very preterm to post-term) with BMI z-scores across 6 age bands (ranging from early infancy to adolescence); and they employ a binomial logistic regression model to examine the relationship of GA and of clinical categories to overweight (defined as >2 SD above WHO Child Growth Standard median for children < 5yo and >1 SD above WHO Growth Reference median for children >=5yo) across similar age bands. Both sets of analyses control for multiple a priori selected factors that were known or plausible causes of variation in GA and subsequent body size, with final selection based on a directed acyclic graph. For 8 cohorts where multiple growth measurements were available for the same child in one or more of the six age-groups the latest measurement was chosen, presumably in order to treat last age of measurement as a cross-sectional variable across all cohorts.

3) There were multiple differences in cohort-specific sample size, distributions of covariates, gestational age groups and follow-up age groups. The proportion of children classified as overweight also varied between cohorts in each age group.

4) Given this heterogeneity, the authors performed meta-regression analyses to determine which study characteristics were independently associated with between-study (cohort) heterogeneity and also performed a 'leave-one-out' analysis for cross-validation.

5) Would recommend revisions to address issues noted below

Evidence and Examples

1) Major Issues:

a. In addition to the heterogeneity that was analyzed, there was also variation in sources of growth data as delineated in Table S1, including at least 4 studies where the source was parent report, including the two largest cohorts from Denmark and Norway (which together comprise over 2/3 of the total sample). A further analysis to compare data from the studies with actual measurements with those from studies with parent-reported measurements would be important.

b. There was also heterogeneity in years of birth (ranging from 1985 to 2017 and presumably also in years at last follow-up measurement. As the authors suggest in the discussion this may reflect some changes over time in population and newborn and subsequent management; but no analysis by year of birth is provided.

c. The percent of children born preterm ranged from 3.1% to 7.5%, which is relatively low compared with other reports (even excluding extremely preterm infants), with 4 cohorts including <1% very preterm.

d. Granted following children up through adolescence is challenging, the body size data for >14 - 19 yo was based on only 4 studies, with over ¾ of those coming from one cohort (Denmark). This needs to be mentioned in limitations section.

e. The results for BMI scores indicate that increasing GA is associated with increasing BMI only during later infancy/early childhood, with progressive attenuation up through adolescence. Conversely, the more premature the clinical categories the lower the BMIz compared to term (for very preterm this was observed at all ages up until adolescence and for late until pre-adolescence). At first glance this appears paradoxical, but on further consideration it is likely related to the different "directions" of the comparison (higher GA compared with lower in the first case and lower compared with higher (term) in the second. That said, this would be worth clarifying further in the discussion.

f. A similar relationship of GA to overweight was found, with attenuation through childhood to adolescence; but in contrast to BMI results and to overweight results by GA, very preterm infants had an increased risk of overweight in adolescence. Though the latter is consistent with several other cited studies from Finland and Australia, the reason for this shift at adolescence is not clear from the data presented and though the discussion points this out, it does not elucidate further. Several recent studies of extremely preterm infants found high prevalence of obesity at pre-adolescence or adolescence, but no difference in prevalence compared to term controls (a study from EPICURE network in England Yanyan Ni et al Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2020 Sep;105(5):496-503 and a study from Dallas Jessica Wickland et al Pediatr Res April 2022); yet other co-morbidities were found elevated. This would be worth a brief comment.

2) Minor Issues:

a. Results note several associations in linear regression analyses whose confidence intervals include 0; strictly speaking such associations are not statistically significant, even though the estimated mean difference in BMIz is >0.0. Moreover, the Forest Plots for these results in Figure 1 do not clearly show inclusion of x axis =0 in the plots.

b. Likewise, in the results from the logistic regression, several associations are noted which include 1 in the confidence interval; strictly speaking such associations are not statistically significant, even though the odds ratio is>1.0.

Any attachments provided with reviews can be seen via the following link:

[LINK]

Decision Letter 2

Philippa Dodd

12 Dec 2022

Dear Dr. Lerbech Vinther,

Thank you very much for re-submitting your manuscript "Gestational age at birth and body size from infancy through adolescence: findings from analyses of individual data on 253,810 singletons in 16 birth cohort studies" (PMEDICINE-D-22-01655R2) for review by PLOS Medicine.

I have discussed the paper with my colleagues and the academic editor and it was also seen again by 3 reviewers. I am pleased to say that provided the remaining editorial and production issues are dealt with we are planning to accept the paper for publication in the journal.

The remaining issues that need to be addressed are listed at the end of this email. Any accompanying reviewer attachments can be seen via the link below. Please take these into account before resubmitting your manuscript:

[LINK]

***Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.***

In revising the manuscript for further consideration here, please ensure you address the specific points made by each reviewer and the editors. In your rebuttal letter you should indicate your response to the reviewers' and editors' comments and the changes you have made in the manuscript. Please submit a clean version of the paper as the main article file. A version with changes marked must also be uploaded as a marked up manuscript file.

Please also check the guidelines for revised papers at http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/revising-your-manuscript for any that apply to your paper. If you haven't already, we ask that you provide a short, non-technical Author Summary of your research to make findings accessible to a wide audience that includes both scientists and non-scientists. The Author Summary should immediately follow the Abstract in your revised manuscript. This text is subject to editorial change and should be distinct from the scientific abstract.

We expect to receive your revised manuscript within 1 week. Please email us (plosmedicine@plos.org) if you have any questions or concerns.

We ask every co-author listed on the manuscript to fill in a contributing author statement. If any of the co-authors have not filled in the statement, we will remind them to do so when the paper is revised. If all statements are not completed in a timely fashion this could hold up the re-review process. Should there be a problem getting one of your co-authors to fill in a statement we will be in contact. YOU MUST NOT ADD OR REMOVE AUTHORS UNLESS YOU HAVE ALERTED THE EDITOR HANDLING THE MANUSCRIPT TO THE CHANGE AND THEY SPECIFICALLY HAVE AGREED TO IT.

Please ensure that the paper adheres to the PLOS Data Availability Policy (see http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/data-availability), which requires that all data underlying the study's findings be provided in a repository or as Supporting Information. For data residing with a third party, authors are required to provide instructions with contact information for obtaining the data. PLOS journals do not allow statements supported by "data not shown" or "unpublished results." For such statements, authors must provide supporting data or cite public sources that include it.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript.

Please note, when your manuscript is accepted, an uncorrected proof of your manuscript will be published online ahead of the final version, unless you've already opted out via the online submission form. If, for any reason, you do not want an earlier version of your manuscript published online or are unsure if you have already indicated as such, please let the journal staff know immediately at plosmedicine@plos.org.

If you have any questions in the meantime, please contact me or the journal staff on plosmedicine@plos.org.  

We look forward to receiving the revised manuscript by Dec 19 2022 11:59PM.   

Sincerely,

Philippa Dodd, MBBS MRCP PhD

PLOS Medicine

plosmedicine.org

------------------------------------------------------------

Requests from Editors:

GENERAL

Thank you for your considered and detailed response to previous editor and reviewer requests, all of which are satisfactory upon review.

The editorial team notes that upon comparison of your manuscript versions many, of the required changes, despite being detailed clearly in your responses were not evident in the manuscript – for example, the author summary is still absent, some figures appear unchanged, changes to the abstract are not apparent.

*** Please see below for specific examples and please check carefully against ALL previous requests to ensure that all changes have been included in the manuscript ***

TITLE

We note your response to the editorial request to update your title. Please revise your title such that it complies with our journal requirements. It should be defined as an individual participant data meta-analysis. Suggest the following:

“Gestational age at birth and body size from infancy through adolescence: an individual participant data meta-analysis of 253,810 singletons from 16 birth cohort studies”

ABSTRACT

We requested that p-values be added to the data reporting, which is a journal requirement, as you acknowledged in your response. We could not see any p-values in the abstract. Please add the p-values. Please also ensure that CIs are reported consistently, currently upper and lower limits are separated either by a semi-colon or a colon and should be separated by a comma (or hyphen although this can cause confusion with negative value reporting) please revise accordingly and throughout the main manuscript.

We requested that the main limitations of the study’s methodology be detailed at the end of the methods and findings, but we could see it. Please include this in the abstract.

AUTHOR SUMMARY

We could not see an author summary in the main manuscript, please include as previously requested following the abstract

METHODS and RESULTS

Many of the figures are unchanged compared to previous versions – for example unadjusted analyses are not present, p-values are absent from the main manuscript

REFERENCES

We previously asked:

“Please see our website for reference guidelines here: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/submission-guidelines#loc-references

Citations should be placed within square parentheses preceding punctuation. Where more than one article is cited please separate the citations with a comma and no spaces as follows: [1,2,3,4] or [1-3,5,7]

Journal name abbreviations should be those found in the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) databases.

In the reference list please ensure no more than 6 author names are listed followed by et al. where more than 6 co-authors contribute to the study.”

These changes were not evident, please amend as previously requested

SOCIAL MEDIA

To help us extend the reach of your research, please provide any Twitter handle(s) that would be appropriate to tag, including your own, your coauthors’, your institution, funder, or lab. Please respond to this email with any handles you wish to be included when we tweet this paper.

Comments from Reviewers:

Reviewer #2: Thanks authors for their great effort to improve the manuscript. I am satisfied with the response and revision. No further issues needing attention.

Reviewer #3: The paper is acceptable for publication.

Reviewer #4: The authors have addressed the issues raised by the reviewers to reasonable degree, and included in discussion those issues it was not feasible to analyze further.

Any attachments provided with reviews can be seen via the following link:

[LINK]

Decision Letter 3

Philippa Dodd

19 Dec 2022

Dear Dr Lerbech Vinther, 

On behalf of my colleagues and the Academic Editor, Professor Lars Persson, I am pleased to inform you that we have agreed to publish your manuscript "Gestational age at birth and body size from infancy through adolescence: an individual participant data meta-analysis on 253,810 singletons in 16 birth cohort studies" (PMEDICINE-D-22-01655R3) in PLOS Medicine.

We require the following be addressed prior to publication:

AUTHOR SUMMARY - please split your author summary into individually bulleted points. We suggest that each sentence becomes an individual point under the relevant sub-heading. Please note that no more than 4 bulleted points should be listed under each sub-heading.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. Please be aware that it may take several days for you to receive this email; during this time no action is required by you. Once you have received these formatting requests, please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes.

In the meantime, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pmedicine/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information to ensure an efficient production process. 

PRESS

We frequently collaborate with press offices. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximise its impact. If the press office is planning to promote your findings, we would be grateful if they could coordinate with medicinepress@plos.org. If you have not yet opted out of the early version process, we ask that you notify us immediately of any press plans so that we may do so on your behalf.

We also ask that you take this opportunity to read our Embargo Policy regarding the discussion, promotion and media coverage of work that is yet to be published by PLOS. As your manuscript is not yet published, it is bound by the conditions of our Embargo Policy. Please be aware that this policy is in place both to ensure that any press coverage of your article is fully substantiated and to provide a direct link between such coverage and the published work. For full details of our Embargo Policy, please visit http://www.plos.org/about/media-inquiries/embargo-policy/.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Thank you again for submitting to PLOS Medicine. We look forward to publishing your paper. 

Best wishes, 

Philippa Dodd, MBBS MRCP PhD 

PLOS Medicine

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Directed acyclic graph for the association between gestational age at birth and body size.

    (TIF)

    S2 Fig. Forest plot of cohort-specific associations between GA (in weeks) and BMI z-score.

    Unadjusted and adjusted estimates with 95% CIs from study-specific linear regression models, where cohorts were assigned weights under the random-effects model to attain the overall estimates. The dot in the forest plot represents the adjusted estimates, while the whiskers span the 95% CI, whereas I2-statistics (I2), sample size (N), studies, and p-value (two-sided, <0.05) relate to adjusted estimates. Estimates reflect mean differences in BMI z-score per week increase in GA at birth in (A) early infancy (>0.0–0.5 years), (B) late infancy (>0.5–2.0 years), (C) early childhood (>2.0–5.0 years), (D) mid-childhood (>5.0–9.0 years), (E) late childhood (>9.0–14.0 years), and (F) adolescence (>14.0–19.0 years). Models are adjusted for sex of child, and the following maternal characteristics: age at child’s birth, education, height, prepregnancy BMI, smoking during pregnancy, parity, ethnic background, gestational diabetes and hypertension, and preeclampsia. Cohort-specific estimates were adjusted for the maximum available set of the confounding variables (see Table 1). BMI, body mass index; CI, confidence interval; GA, gestational age.

    (TIF)

    S3 Fig. Forest plot of ‘leave-one-out’ analysis for the association between GA (in weeks) and BMI z-score.

    Overall adjusted estimates of BMI z-score with 95% CIs from study-specific linear regression models, where cohorts were assigned weights under the random-effects model to attain the estimate. The dot in the forest plot represents the adjusted estimates, while the whiskers span the 95% CI, whereas I2-statistics (I2), sample size (N), studies, and p-value (two-sided, <0.05) relate to adjusted estimates. Estimates reflect mean differences in BMI z-score per week increase in GA at birth in (A) early infancy (>0.0–0.5 years), (B) late infancy (>0.5–2.0 years), (C) early childhood (>2.0–5.0 years), (D) mid-childhood (>5.0–9.0 years), (E) late childhood (>9.0–14.0 years), and (F) adolescence (>14.0–19.0 years). Models are adjusted for sex of child, and the following maternal characteristics: age at child’s birth, education, height, prepregnancy BMI, smoking during pregnancy, parity, ethnic background, gestational diabetes and hypertension, and preeclampsia. Cohort-specific estimates were adjusted for the maximum available set of the confounding variables (see Table 1). BMI, body mass index; CI, confidence interval; GA, gestational age.

    (TIF)

    S4 Fig. Forest plot of associations between GA (in weeks) and BMI z-score by sex.

    Overall adjusted estimates of BMI z-score with 95% CIs from study-specific linear regression models, where cohorts were assigned weights under the random-effects model to attain the estimate. The blue (male) and yellow (female) dots in the forest plot represent the adjusted estimates, while the whiskers span the 95% CI, whereas I2-statistics (I2), sample size (N), studies, and p-value (two-sided, <0.05) relate to adjusted estimates. Estimates reflect mean differences in BMI z-score per week increase in GA at birth in early infancy (>0.0–0.5 years), late infancy (>0.5–2.0 years), early childhood (>2.0–5.0 years), mid-childhood (>5.0–9.0 years), late childhood (>9.0–14.0 years), and adolescence (>14.0–19.0 years). Models are adjusted for sex of child, and the following maternal characteristics: age at child’s birth, education, height, prepregnancy BMI, smoking during pregnancy, parity, ethnic background, gestational diabetes and hypertension, and preeclampsia. Cohort-specific estimates were adjusted for the maximum available set of the confounding variables (see Table 1). BMI, body mass index; CI, confidence interval; GA, gestational age.

    (TIF)

    S5 Fig. Forest plot of associations between GA (in weeks) and BMI z-score by maternal education.

    Overall adjusted estimates of BMI z-score with 95% CIs from study-specific linear regression models, where cohorts were assigned weights under the random-effects model to attain the estimate. The blue (high educational level) and yellow (low/medium educational level) dots in the forest plot represent the adjusted estimates, while the whiskers span the 95% CI, whereas I2-statistics (I2), sample size (N), studies, and p-value (two-sided, <0.05) relate to adjusted estimates. Estimates reflect mean differences in BMI z-score per week increase in GA at birth in early infancy (>0.0–0.5 years), late infancy (>0.5–2.0 years), early childhood (>2.0–5.0 years), mid-childhood (>5.0–9.0 years), late childhood (>9.0–14.0 years), and adolescence (>14.0–19.0 years). Models are adjusted for sex of child, and the following maternal characteristics: age at child’s birth, education, height, prepregnancy BMI, smoking during pregnancy, parity, ethnic background, gestational diabetes and hypertension, and preeclampsia. Cohort-specific estimates were adjusted for the maximum available set of the confounding variables (see Table 1). BMI, body mass index; CI, confidence interval; GA, gestational age.

    (TIF)

    S6 Fig. Forest plot of associations between GA (in weeks) and BMI z-score by maternal smoking in pregnancy.

    Overall adjusted estimates of BMI z-score with 95% CIs from study-specific linear regression models, where cohorts were assigned weights under the random-effects model to attain the estimate. The blue (smoking in pregnancy) and yellow (no smoking in pregnancy) dots in the forest plot represent the adjusted estimates, while the whiskers span the 95% CI, whereas I2-statistics (I2), sample size (N), studies, and p-value (two-sided, <0.05) relate to adjusted estimates. Estimates reflect mean differences in BMI z-score per week increase in GA at birth in early infancy (>0.0–0.5 years), late infancy (>0.5–2.0 years), early childhood (>2.0–5.0 years), mid-childhood (>5.0–9.0 years), late childhood (>9.0–14.0 years), and adolescence (>14.0–19.0 years). Models are adjusted for sex of child, and the following maternal characteristics: age at child’s birth, education, height, prepregnancy BMI, smoking during pregnancy, parity, ethnic background, gestational diabetes and hypertension, and preeclampsia. Cohort-specific estimates were adjusted for the maximum available set of the confounding variables (see Table 1). BMI, body mass index; CI, confidence interval; GA, gestational age.

    (TIF)

    S7 Fig. Forest plot of associations between GA (in weeks) and BMI z-score by year of birth.

    Overall adjusted estimates of BMI z-score with 95% CIs from study-specific linear regression models, where cohorts were assigned weights under the random-effects model to attain the estimate. The blue (<2001) and yellow (≥2001) dots in the forest plot represent the adjusted estimates, while the whiskers span the 95% CI, whereas I2-statistics (I2), sample size (N), studies, and p-value (two-sided, <0.05) relate to adjusted estimates. Estimates reflect mean differences in BMI z-score per week increase in GA at birth in early infancy (>0.0–0.5 years), late infancy (>0.5–2.0 years), early childhood (>2.0–5.0 years), mid-childhood (>5.0–9.0 years), late childhood (>9.0–14.0 years), and adolescence (>14.0–19.0 years). Models are adjusted for sex of child, and the following maternal characteristics: age at child’s birth, education, height, prepregnancy BMI, smoking during pregnancy, parity, ethnic background, gestational diabetes and hypertension, and preeclampsia. Cohort-specific estimates were adjusted for the maximum available set of the confounding variables (see Table 1). BMI, body mass index; CI, confidence interval; GA, gestational age.

    (TIF)

    S8 Fig. Forest plot of cohort-specific associations between GA (in weeks) and odds of overweight.

    Unadjusted and adjusted ORs with 95% CIs from study-specific logistic regression models, where cohorts were assigned weights under the random-effects model to attain the overall estimates. The dot in the forest plot represents the adjusted OR, while the whiskers span the 95% CI, whereas I2-statistics (I2), sample size (N), studies, and p-value (two-sided, <0.05) relate to adjusted OR. Estimates reflect OR of overweight (vs. normal weight) per week increase in GA at birth in (A) early infancy (>0.0–0.5 years), (B) late infancy (>0.5–2.0 years), (C) early childhood (>2.0–5.0 years), (D) mid-childhood (>5.0–9.0 years), (E) late childhood (>9.0–14.0 years), and (F) adolescence (>14.0–19.0 years). Models are adjusted for sex of child, and the following maternal characteristics: age at child’s birth, education, height, prepregnancy BMI, smoking during pregnancy, parity, ethnic background, gestational diabetes and hypertension, and preeclampsia. Cohort-specific estimates were adjusted for the maximum available set of the confounding variables (see Table 1). BMI, body mass index; CI, confidence interval; GA, gestational age; OR, odds ratio.

    (TIF)

    S9 Fig. Forest plot of “leave-one-out” analysis for the association between GA (in weeks) and odds of overweight.

    Adjusted ORs with 95% CIs from study-specific logistic regression models, where cohorts were assigned weights under the random-effects model to attain the overall estimates. The dot in the forest plot represents the adjusted OR, while the whiskers span the 95% CI, whereas I2-statistics (I2), sample size (N), studies, and p-value (two-sided, <0.05) relate to adjusted OR. Estimates reflect OR of overweight (vs. normal weight) per week increase in GA at birth in (A) early infancy (>0.0–0.5 years), (B) late infancy (>0.5–2.0 years), (C) early childhood (>2.0–5.0 years), (D) mid-childhood (>5.0–9.0 years), (E) late childhood (>9.0–14.0 years), and (F) adolescence (>14.0–19.0 years). Models are adjusted for sex of child, and the following maternal characteristics: age at child’s birth, education, height, prepregnancy BMI, smoking during pregnancy, parity, ethnic background, gestational diabetes and hypertension, and preeclampsia. Cohort-specific estimates were adjusted for the maximum available set of the confounding variables (see Table 1). BMI, body mass index; CI, confidence interval; GA, gestational age; OR, odds ratio.

    (TIF)

    S10 Fig. Forest plot of associations between GA (in weeks) and odds of overweight by sex.

    Overall adjusted ORs of overweight with 95% CIs from study-specific linear regression models, where cohorts were assigned weights under the random-effects model to attain the OR. The blue (male) and yellow (female) dots in the forest plot represent the adjusted ORs, while the whiskers span the 95% CI, whereas I2-statistics (I2), sample size (N), studies, and p-value (two-sided, <0.05) relate to adjusted OR. Estimates reflect OR of overweight (vs. normal weight) per week increase in GA at birth in early infancy (>0.0–0.5 years), late infancy (>0.5–2.0 years), early childhood (>2.0–5.0 years), mid-childhood (>5.0–9.0 years), late childhood (>9.0–14.0 years), and adolescence (>14.0–19.0 years). Models are adjusted for sex of child, and the following maternal characteristics: age at child’s birth, education, height, prepregnancy BMI, smoking during pregnancy, parity, ethnic background, gestational diabetes and hypertension, and preeclampsia. Cohort-specific estimates were adjusted for the maximum available set of the confounding variables (see Table 1). BMI, body mass index; CI, confidence interval; GA, gestational age; OR, odds ratio.

    (TIF)

    S11 Fig. Forest plot of associations between GA (in weeks) and odds of overweight by maternal education.

    Overall adjusted ORs of overweight with 95% CIs from study-specific linear regression models, where cohorts were assigned weights under the random-effects model to attain the OR. The blue (high educational level) and yellow (low/medium educational level) dots in the forest plot represents the adjusted OR, while the whiskers span the 95% CI, whereas I2-statistics (I2), sample size (N), studies, and p-value (two-sided, <0.05) relate to adjusted OR. Estimates reflect OR of overweight (vs. normal weight) per week increase in GA at birth in early infancy (>0.0–0.5 years), late infancy (>0.5–2.0 years), early childhood (>2.0–5.0 years), mid-childhood (>5.0–9.0 years), late childhood (>9.0–14.0 years), and adolescence (>14.0–19.0 years). Models are adjusted for sex of child, and the following maternal characteristics: age at child’s birth, education, height, prepregnancy BMI, smoking during pregnancy, parity, ethnic background, gestational diabetes and hypertension, and preeclampsia. Cohort-specific estimates were adjusted for the maximum available set of the confounding variables (see Table 1). BMI, body mass index; CI, confidence interval; GA, gestational age; OR, odds ratio.

    (TIF)

    S12 Fig. Forest plot of associations between GA (in weeks) and odds of overweight by maternal smoking in pregnancy.

    Overall adjusted ORs of overweight with 95% CIs from study-specific linear regression models, where cohorts were assigned weights under the random-effects model to attain the OR. The blue (smoking in pregnancy) and yellow (no smoking in pregnancy) dots in the forest plot represents the adjusted OR, while the whiskers span the 95% CI, whereas I2-statistics (I2), sample size (N), studies, and p-value (two-sided, <0.05) relate to adjusted OR. Estimates reflect OR of overweight (vs. normal weight) per week increase in GA at birth in early infancy (>0.0–0.5 years), late infancy (>0.5–2.0 years), early childhood (>2.0–5.0 years), mid-childhood (>5.0–9.0 years), late childhood (>9.0–14.0 years), and adolescence (>14.0–19.0 years). Models are adjusted for sex of child, and the following maternal characteristics: age at child’s birth, education, height, prepregnancy BMI, smoking during pregnancy, parity, ethnic background, gestational diabetes and hypertension, and preeclampsia. Cohort-specific estimates were adjusted for the maximum available set of the confounding variables (see Table 1). BMI, body mass index; CI, confidence interval; GA, gestational age; OR, odds ratio.

    (TIF)

    S13 Fig. Forest plot of associations between GA (in weeks) and odds of overweight by year of birth.

    Overall adjusted ORs of overweight with 95% CIs from study-specific linear regression models, where cohorts were assigned weights under the random-effects model to attain the OR. The blue (<2001) and yellow (≥2001) dots in the forest plot represents the adjusted OR, while the whiskers span the 95% CI, whereas I2-statistics (I2), sample size (N), studies, and p-value (two-sided, <0.05) relate to adjusted OR. Estimates reflect OR of overweight (vs. normal weight) per week increase in GA at birth in early infancy (>0.0–0.5 years), late infancy (>0.5–2.0 years), early childhood (>2.0–5.0 years), mid-childhood (>5.0–9.0 years), late childhood (>9.0–14.0 years), and adolescence (>14.0–19.0 years). Models are adjusted for sex of child, and the following maternal characteristics: age at child’s birth, education, height, prepregnancy BMI, smoking during pregnancy, parity, ethnic background, gestational diabetes and hypertension, and preeclampsia. Cohort-specific estimates were adjusted for the maximum available set of the confounding variables (see Table 1). BMI, body mass index; CI, confidence interval; GA, gestational age; OR, odds ratio.

    (TIF)

    S1 Table. Cohort-specific study characteristics and information on exposure and outcome measurements.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Table. Missing values in cohort-specific baseline characteristics.

    (DOCX)

    S3 Table. Results of individual variable meta-regression models showing values of β, se(β), and the significance of β for each study characteristic.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Text. Information about variable classification and coding.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Appendix. Cohort-specific sources of funding/support.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Appendix. Cohort-specific acknowledgments.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: TO EDITOR_14_12_2022.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    The data used for this study is third-party data, and without legally permission of distribution or public sharing. Information about data access and governance for this study is explained in detail in a peer-reviewed scientific paper by Prof. Vincent Jaddoe et al (2020): “The LifeCycle Project‑EU Child Cohort Network: a federated analysis infrastructure and harmonized data of more than 250,000 children and parents”. The principal investigators or home institutions administer permission to the data for external researchers: hence, access to the data is conditional on reasonable request and with approval by each cohort. A description of the data set and third-party sources are listed in Supplementary Materials, and displayed online at the EU Child Cohort Variable Catalogue (https://data-catalogue.molgeniscloud.org/catalogue/catalogue/#/) and the Maelstrom Catalogue (https://www.maelstrom-research.org/page/catalogue). Please, for data request find below cohort-specific contact details (email address and/or web). ALSPAC, United Kingdom Email: alspac-data@bristol.ac.uk Web: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/alspac/researchers/access/ AOF, Canada Email: stough@ucalgary.ca Web: https://allourfamiliesstudy.com/data-access/, http://allourfamiliesstudy.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/AOF-Access-and-Acknowledgement-Guidelines-March-2017-Sec.pdf BiB, United Kingdom Email: borninbradford@bthft.nhs.uk Web: https://borninbradford.nhs.uk/research/how-to-access-data/ CHILD, Canada Email: child@mcmaster.ca Web: https://childstudy.ca/for-researchers/data-access/ DNBC, Denmark Email: amna@sund.ku.dk Web: https://www.dnbc.dk/access-to-dnbc-data EDEN, France Email: etude.eden@inserm.fr ELFE, France Email: contact@elfe-france.fr Web: https://www.elfe-france.fr/en/the-research/access-to-data-and-questionnaires/ G21, Portugal Email: info@geracao21.com, catia.ferreira@ispup.up.pt GECKO, The Netherlands Email: e.corpeleijn@umcg.nl Web: https://www.umcg.nl/-/medisch-wetenschappelijk-onderzoek/gecko GEN R, The Netherlands Email: v.jaddoe@erasmusmc.nl Web: https://generationr.nl/researchers/collaboration/ INMA, Spain Web: https://www.proyectoinma.org/ MoBa, Norway Email: jennifer.harris@fhi.no Web: http://www.fhi.no/moba NFBC1986, Finland Email: sylvain.sebert@oulu.fi Web: https://www.oulu.fi/en/university/faculties-and-units/faculty-medicine/northern-finland-birth-cohorts-and-arctic-biobank/nfbc-aineistopyynto NINFEA, Italy Email: info@progettoninfea.it, lorenzo.richiardi@unito.it Web: https://www.progettoninfea.it/index_en SWS, United Kingdom Email: sws@soton.ac.uk Web: https://www.mrc.soton.ac.uk/sws/ RAINE, Australia Email: raineadmin-sph@uwa.edu.au Web: https://rainestudy.org.au/information-for-researchers/available-data/.


    Articles from PLOS Medicine are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES