MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Reliability of Air Displacement Plethysmography in a Large Sample

2004· article· en· W2046041629 on OpenAlexaff
Eric E. Noreen, Peter W.R. Lemon

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBody Composition Measurement Techniques
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlethysmographMedicineCoefficient of variationNuclear medicineAnimal scienceInternal medicineMathematicsStatisticsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

0482 Several studies have examined the validity of air displacement plethysmography (ADP) as a means of measuring body volume (BV) and assessing body density (Db) in humans. However, few studies have been done to assess the reliability of ADP. PURPOSE: To determine the reliability of ADP using the BodPod® in a large sample. METHODS: 980 healthy men and women (30 ± 15y, mean ± SD) completed two body composition assessments separated by 15–30 min. Some of these subjects (n = 348) completed a total of three body composition assessments. All testing was done in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. RESULTS: Results from 2 tests: There was a significant correlation (r = 0.992, p = 0.001) between Db 1 (1.0463 ± 0.0009 kg/l [mean ± SEM]) and Db 2 (1.0463 ± 0.0009 kg/l). A paired t-test revealed no significant difference between Db 1and 2 (p = 0.935). The coefficient of variation (CV) for Db was 0.15%. Body Mass (BM) 1 and 2 were correlated significantly (r = 0.999, p = 0.001); however, there was a significant (p = 0.001) decrease from BM 1 (75.5095 ± 0.4612 kg) to BM 2 (75.4974 ± 0.4611 kg). BV tended to decrease (p = 0.08) from BV 1 (69.8998 ± 0.4491 l) to BV 2 (69.8840 ± 0.4486 l). Results from 3 tests: There were no significant differences found for Db among the 3 trials (1.0455 ± 0.0015 kg/l, 1.0454 ± 0.0015 kg/l, 1.0457 ± 0.0015 kg/l). The CV for Db was 0.18%. There was a significant decrease with time from BM 1(74.7607 ± 0.7646 kg) to BM 2 (74.7518 ± 0.7645 kg; p = 0.007) and from BM 2 to BM 3 (74.7460 ± 0.7645 kg; p = 0.001). BV decreased (p = 0.043) from BV 1 (69.2607 ± 0.7466 l) to BV 3 (69.2286 ± 0.7450 l). CONCLUSION: ADP using the Bod Pod® appears to assess Db reliably; however, the observed CV suggests that multiple trials are necessary to detect small treatment effects. Performing 3 trials instead of 2 does not appear to increase the reliability. The slight, but significant, reduction in BM seen over a short period of time suggests that the scale is sensitive enough to detect metabolic/evaporative mass loss. Supported by The Joe Weider Foundation

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.668

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.298
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & ExerciseSame topicBody Composition Measurement TechniquesFrench-language works237,207