Stability of Adiposity Phenotypes from Childhood and Adolescence into Young Adulthood with Contribution of Parental Measures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The stability of several indicators of body composition and adipose tissue distribution over 12 years was quantified. RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES: The participants were 77 boys and 76 girls who were evaluated along with their parents at baseline as children and adolescents (8 to 18 years of age) and remeasured as young adults 12 years later. Indicators of body composition included the body mass index, fat mass, fat free mass, percentage of body fat, sum of six skinfolds (SF6), and the first principal component of six age-adjusted skinfold residuals. Relative adipose tissue distribution was represented by the second principal component of skinfold residuals and a trunk-to-extremity skinfold ratio, adjusted for SF6. RESULTS: Partial interage correlations, controlling for initial age and length of follow-up, were 0.65 and 0.59 for the body mass index, 0.59 and 0.64 for fat mass, 0.65 and 0.57 for fat free mass, 0.50 and 0.57 for percentage of body fat, 0.66 and 0.44 for SF6, 0.64 and 0.42 for the first principal component of six age-adjusted skinfold residuals, 0.19 and 0.31 for the second principal component of skinfold residuals, and 0.41 and 0.47 for trunk-to-extremity skinfold ratio, adjusted for SF6, in men and women, respectively. Multiple regression analyses indicated that the significant partial R(2) values of parental measurements on the prediction of their offspring in young adulthood ranged from 2% to 9%. DISCUSSION: The results indicate moderately high stability of indicators of body composition and somewhat lower stability of measures of adipose tissue distribution. Overall, parental measures offer less predictive value than do measures of childhood and adolescent body composition and adipose tissue distribution.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".