The feasibility of establishing correction factors to adjust self-reported estimates of obesity.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study examines the feasibility of developing correction factors to adjust self-reported measures of body mass index (BMI) to more closely approximate measured values. DATA AND METHODS: Data are from the 2005 Canadian Community Health Survey (subsample 2), in which respondents were asked to report their height and weight, and were subsequently measured. Regression analyses were used to determine which socio-demographic and health characteristics were associated with the discrepancies between self-reported and measured values. The sample was then split into two groups. In the first, self-reported BMI and the predictors of the discrepancies were regressed on measured BMI. Correction equations were generated using all predictor variables that were significant at the p < 0.05 level. These correction equations were then tested in the second group to derive estimates of sensitivity, specificity and obesity prevalence. Logistic regression was used to examine relationships between self-reported, measured and corrected BMI and obesity-related health conditions. RESULTS: Corrected estimates provide more accurate measures of obesity prevalence, mean BMI and sensitivity levels (percentage correctly classified). In almost all cases, associations between BMI and health conditions are more accurate when based on corrected versus self-reported values.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".