Comparison of Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis and Air Displacement Plethysmography in Community-Dwelling Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clinicians and researchers use body composition measurements to identify individuals who may be at risk of adverse health complications. This study compared two commonly used two-compartmental anthropometric models (bioelectrical impedance analysis [BIA] and air displacement plethysmography [ADP]) to determine whether these two cost-effective methods would provide similar fat free mass index (FFMI) values in a mixed and sex-separated sample population of healthy older adults. Community-dwelling older adults (N= 37, 18 men) aged 74.5 ± 5.2 years participated. FFMIBIAwas correlated with FFMIADP(r= .916); however, these correlations were markedly reduced when the population was split by sex (r< .60). The level of agreement between the difference values (FFMIBIA- FFMIADP) fluctuated ± 2.1 kg/m(2)(illustrated via Bland-Altman plots), but these differences were not statistically different from 0. Findings from the current work suggest that clinicians must be cautious when using portable devices such as BIA to assess FFMI in an older adult population.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".