English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The final step in the acceptance of a new medical hypothesis is often the approval of significant funding to investigate it. In the case of developmental programming (ie, the notion that the in utero environment determines susceptibility to many diseases later in life), this has recently come in the form of support by the US Congress for the National Children’s Study, a $3 billion project to follow the impact of environmental factors before, during, and after pregnancy on disease manifestation in some 100 000 children up to the age of 25 years.1 This initiative will, no doubt, yield a wealth of correlative data and identify many new factors potentially affecting developmental programming.Article p 405 Much of the concept underlying the National Children’s Study stems from the pioneering work of Barker and colleagues,2 whose epidemiological observation of increased cardiovascular risk in children with low birth weight has spurred a large number of retrospective studies during the past 30 years. Despite some conflicting results, most of these studies support the notion that reduced birth weight is indeed associated with increased hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and cardiovascular disease. However, the strong correlation between birth weight and duration of gestation, plus the fact that a short gestation also may be associated with cardiovascular risk,3 poses the question to what extent low birth weight is truly responsible. In this issue of Circulation , an article by Kaijser and coworkers4 at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm provides a convincing answer. By scanning 250 000 records of birth at 4 major delivery units in Sweden between 1925 and 1949, they identified a cohort of 6437 subjects, which included 2937 children born preterm (<37 weeks of gestation) and 2181 with a birth weight <2000 g for girls or <2100 g for boys. During the …

Impaired Fetal Growth, Cardiovascular Disease, and the Need to Move on