Evaluating <scp>C</scp>anadian children: <scp>WHO</scp>, <scp>NHANES</scp> or what?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The 2006 World Health Organization (WHO) growth charts have been widely adopted by Canadian dieticians for growth monitoring of Canadian children rather than the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III) reference data. It has been unclear as to which is the most appropriate. METHODS: We calculated height and weight z-scores of 3086 consecutive patients (1530 female, 49.6%) aged 0-5 years, attending outpatient clinics at a single tertiary care centre using reference data of the latest NHANES survey and the 2006 WHO growth charts. To address age dependency, data were stratified into age groups. Gender dependency was also investigated. RESULTS: Using NHANES III reference intervals, medians of both height z-score (+0.24) and weight z-score (+0.32) were significantly non-zero. The WHO growth charts yielded medians of height z-score (-0.15) and weight z-score (+0.36) respectively, also significantly non-zero. When comparing both reference populations for the entire cohort, Canadian children had significantly different height z-scores whereas weight z-scores did not differ. Age classification revealed a significant age dependency with NHANES III charts yielding higher weight z-scores for up to 8 months and lower z-scores from 8 to 26 months. No significant differences were observed for older than 26 months. Throughout, height z-scores were significantly higher with NHANES III charts across all age groups, with a degree of overestimation higher in younger boys than older ones. CONCLUSION: Our results reveal substantial differences between both reference populations and thus interpretation needs to be done with caution, especially when labelling results as abnormal.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".