Modelling individual infancy growth trajectories to predict excessive gain in BMI z-score: a comparison of growth measures in the ABCD and GECKO Drenthe cohorts.

BACKGROUND:Excessive weight gain during childhood is a strong predictor for adult overweight, but it remains unknown which growth measures in infancy (0-2 years of age), besides predictors known at birth, are the strongest predictors for excessive weight gain between 2 and 5-7 years of age. METHODS:The Amsterdam Born Children and their Development (ABCD) study formed the derivation cohort, and the Groningen Expert Center for Kids with Obesity (GECKO) Drenthe study formed the validation cohort. Change (Δ) in body mass index (BMI) z-score between 2 and 5-7 years was the outcome of interest. The growth measures considered were weight, weight-for-length (WfL), and body mass index (BMI). Formats considered for each growth measure were values at 1, 6, 12, and 24 months, at the BMI peak, the change between aforementioned ages, and prepeak velocity. 10 model structures combining different variable formats and including predictors at birth were derived for each growth measure, resulting in 30 linear regression models. A Parsimonious Model considering all growth measures and a Birth Model considering none were also derived. RESULTS:The derivation cohort consisted of 3139 infants of which 373 (11.9%) had excessive gain in BMI z-score (> 0.67). The validation cohort contained 2201 infants of which 592 (26.9%) had excessive gain. Across the 3 growth measures, 5 model structures which included measures related to the BMI peak and prepeak velocity (derivation cohort area under the curve [AUC] range = 0.765-0.855) achieved more accurate estimates than 3 model structures which included growth measure change over time (0.706-0.795). All model structures which used BMI were superior to those using weight or WfL. The AUC across all models was on average 0.126 lower in the validation cohort. The Parsimonious Model's AUCs in the derivation and validation cohorts were 0.856 and 0.766, respectively, compared to 0.690 and 0.491, respectively, for the Birth Model. The respective false positive rates were 28.2% and 20.1% for the Parsimonious Model and 70.0% and 74.6% for the Birth Model. CONCLUSION:Models' performances varied significantly across model structures and growth measures. Developing the optimal model requires extensive testing of the many possibilities.