BODY PERCEPTION; OVERWEIGHT AND OBESITY - CHILDREN, THEIR PARENTS AND PHYSICIANS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Physicians postulate that parents' distorted perception of their children's overweight leads to indifference about weight. This study compared children's, parents' and physicians' perceptions of children's body proportions. Methods: We administered a survey, of body image and wt. perception to children age 12-18. This was given to caregivers of children aged 5-18 years. The sample consisted of 91 children and caregivers being seen in the Pediatric G.I. Clinic for concerns unrelated to overweight. Wt. and ht. of the subjects were measured and BMI calculated (CDC charts). 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 their patient without reference to BMI standards. Accuracy of the patients', caregivers', and doctors' estimations were statistically compared. Results: 44% of caregivers underestimated using descriptions and 47.4% using figures. 40% of the children underestimated their own body size using descriptions and 42.6% using figures. The MD's had a higher percentage of correct estimations; however they underestimated 32.9% using descriptions and 33.3% using figures. Many obese children were not recognized and average children were perceived as underweight. Conclusions: This study confirms the high prevalence of overweight and obesity (23.1%), in children evaluated in a Pediatric GI clinic. Many of these children underestimated their weight. This misperception was shared by their caregivers and even their attending physicians. This study demonstrates the importance of consistently using the BMI graphs in order to improve counseling of children at risk of obesity.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".