Field Testing of the 2006 World Health Organization Growth Charts From Birth to 2 Years: Assessment of Hospital Undernutrition and Overnutrition Rates and the Usefulness of BMI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) recently released a growth standard, a first attempt at describing how children should grow in an ideal environment. These charts introduce body mass index (BMI)-for-age percentiles for children younger than 2 years. Adopting the WHO standard may affect the number of children screened to require follow-up; hence, field testing needs to be completed in a tertiary care center where the incidence of suboptimal nutrition is high. The objectives of this study were to quantify differences between the new WHO and 2000 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) growth charts for children younger than 2 years. The interchangeability of the WHO weight-for-length and WHO BMI percentiles was also assessed. METHODS: Percentile scores were computed for children younger than 2 years (n = 547) admitted to a pediatric tertiary health care center in Toronto, Canada. RESULTS: The WHO standard identified more children younger than 2 years as at risk of overweight/obesity compared with the CDC reference (21.0% vs 16.6%, >or=85th weight-for-length percentile) and fewer children as wasted (18.6% vs 23.0%, <5th weight-for-length percentile). The WHO BMI-for-age and WHO weight-for-length percentiles were highly correlated (r2 = 0.83) but not interchangeable. For approximately 9% of all children, and approximately 16% of those aged 25 percentile points. CONCLUSIONS: These data describe for the first time the magnitude of differences in the number of children screened as undernourished (4.4% decrease) or overnourished (4.4% increase) with adoption of the WHO standard in a tertiary care setting. Furthermore, the WHO's BMI-for-age and weight-for-length percentiles for children younger than 2 years are correlated but are not interchangeable.
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 | 0.009 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".