Self-Measured Waist Circumference in Older Patients With Heart Failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief PURPOSE Evidence supports the use of waist circumference (WC) as an important clinical measure of body composition and obesity-related health risk. Self-monitoring of WC may be problematic for older persons, especially for those with a chronic illness such as heart failure (HF). No studies to date have measured the accuracy of self-measured WC in older persons with HF. Therefore, the objective of this study was to determine the reliability and validity of self-measured WC in older patients with HF. METHODS The reliability of self-measured WC was evaluated over 7 days in 100 older (65–93 years) men and women with HF. The validity and accuracy of self-measured WC in comparison with technician-measured WC was evaluated in a second group of 45 men and women (40–91 years) recruited from a HF clinic. RESULTS Reliability results identified a high intraclass correlation between the 7 self-measurements (r = 0.99, P < .0001). The validity analysis yielded a correlation of 0.98 between self- and technician-measured WC (P < .0001). Mean differences between technician- and self-measurement were insignificant (0.60 cm; 95% CI: −0.35–1.50). Limits of agreement were −5.5 to 6.7 cm and indicated no systematic differences between self- and technician-measured WC. Ninety-six percent of participants were able to correctly classify themselves into the appropriate WC risk category. CONCLUSIONS Results indicate that a single self-measurement of WC is reliable. Validation results indicate that WC self-measured by older HF patients may be appropriate for large epidemiologic studies. However, the large limits of agreement suggest that self-measured WC may not be adequately sensitive for monitoring individual changes. The objective of this study was to determine the reliability and validity of self-measured waist circumference (WC) in older persons with heart failure (HF). Results indicate that a single self-measurement of WC is reliable, and that WC selfmeasured by older HF patients may be appropriate for large epidemiologic studies, but may not be adequately sensitive for monitoring individual changes.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".