MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2004300574 · doi:10.1097/mpg.0b013e31815a34

Body Perception: Do Parents, Their Children, and Their Children's Physicians Perceive Body Image Differently?

2008· article· en· W2004300574 on OpenAlex
Rebecca Chaimovitz, Robert M. Issenman, Tina Moffat, Rabindranath Persad

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicObesity and Health Practices
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityMcMaster Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineUnderweightOverweightBody mass indexPercentilePediatricsObesityPopulationDemographyLikert scaleChildhood obesityInternal medicineDevelopmental psychologyEnvironmental healthPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To compare children's, parents' and physicians' perceptions of children's body size. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We administered a structured questionnaire of body size perception using a descriptive Likert scale keyed to body image figures to children ages 12 to 18 years. The same scale was given to parents of children ages 5 to 18 years. The sample consisted of 91 children and their parents being seen in the Pediatric Gastroenterology Clinic for concerns unrelated to overweight. Weight and height of the children were measured, and body mass index (BMI) was calculated. The children's BMI percentiles were categorized as underweight (<15th), normal (15th-85th), overweight (85th-95th), and obese (95th and above). The attending physician independently completed the body image and description scale and indicated the figure that most accurately represented the patient without reference to BMI standards. Accuracy of the patients', parents', and doctors' estimates were statistically compared. RESULTS: The sample population consisted of 6.4% underweight, 70.5% normal weight, 7.7% overweight, and 15.4% obese. Forty-four percent of parents underestimated children's body size using word descriptions and 47% underestimated using figures. Forty percent of the children underestimated their own body size using descriptions and 43% underestimated using figures. The physicians in this study had a higher percentage of correct estimates; however, they underestimated 33% of the patients using both word descriptions and figures. Some obese children were not recognized, and several average children were perceived as underweight. CONCLUSIONS: Many children underestimated their degree of overweight. Their parents and even their attending physicians shared this misperception. This study demonstrates the need to further educate physicians to recognize obesity and overweight so that they can counsel children and their families.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.976

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.293 · 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