The assessment of weight status in children and young people attending a spina bifida outpatient clinic: a retrospective medical record review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Children with disabilities are two to three times more likely to become overweight or obese than typically developing children. Children with spina bifida (SB) are at particular risk, yet obesity prevalence and weight management with this population are under-researched. This retrospective chart review explored how weight is assessed and discussed in a children's SB outpatient clinic. METHOD: Height/weight data were extracted from records of children aged 2-18 with a diagnosis of SB attending an outpatient clinic at least once between June 2009-2011. Body mass index was calculated and classified using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention cut-offs. Notes around weight, diet and physical/sedentary activities were transcribed verbatim and analysed using descriptive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Of 180 eligible patients identified, only 63 records had sufficient data to calculate BMI; 15 patients were overweight (23.81%) and 11 obese (17.46%). Weight and physical activity discussions were typically related to function (e.g. mobility, pain). Diet discussions focused on bowel and bladder function and dietary challenges. CONCLUSIONS: Anthropometrics were infrequently recorded, leaving an incomplete picture of weight status in children with SB and suggesting that weight is not prioritised. Bowel/bladder function was highlighted over other benefits of a healthy body weight, indicating that health promotion opportunities are being missed. Implications for Rehabilitation It is important to assess, categorise and record anthropometric data for children and youth with spina bifida as they may be at particular risk of excess weight. Information around weight categorisation should be discussed openly and non-judgmentally with children and their families. Health promotion opportunities may be missed by focusing solely on symptom management or function. Healthcare professionals should emphasise the broad benefits of healthy eating and physical activity, offering strategies to enable the child to incorporate healthy lifestyle behaviours appropriate to their level of ability.
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 | 0.006 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".