MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Normative dual energy X‐ray absorptiometry data in Swedish children and adolescents

2010· article· en· W1943192064 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gayani Alwis, Björn E. Rosengren, Susanna Stenevi‐Lundgren, Henrik Düppe, Ingemar Sernbo, Magnus K. Karlsson

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Paediatrica · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBody Composition Measurement Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersVetenskapsrådet
KeywordsMedicineNormativeDual-energy X-ray absorptiometryDual (grammatical number)PediatricsInternal medicineBone mineral

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: To present normative dual energy X-ray absorptiometry data in healthy young Swedes. METHODS: Included were 710 girls and 759 boys aged 6-30 years from southern Sweden. Bone mineral content, bone mineral density, bone size, lean body and fat mass were measured by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry in total body, lumbar spine, hip, arms and legs. RESULTS: Swedish children had similar bone mass to children in the Netherlands but higher than children in Canada and Korea. Height, weight, bone mass, bone size and lean mass increased at a constant rate from age 6 until the rapid increase in all traits at puberty. The pubertal growth spurt started earlier in girls than in boys, while the spurt in boys was larger in magnitude and occurred for a longer period. Around one-quarter of the adult total body and lumbar spine peak bone mineral content was gained during the 2 years with the fastest gain in both genders. CONCLUSION: This study presents normative bone mass data in Swedish children, data that are similar to that in Dutch children but higher than in Canadian and Korean children. The gain in Swedish children seems to mimic the gain seen in children in other settings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations51
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa PaediatricaSame topicBody Composition Measurement TechniquesFrench-language works237,207