Comparison of the Classification of Obesity by BMI vs. Dual‐energy X‐ray Absorptiometry in the Newfoundland Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although BMI is the most widely used measure of obesity, debate still exists on how accurately BMI defines obesity. In this study, adiposity status defined by BMI and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) was compared in a large population to evaluate the accuracy of BMI. A total of 1,691 adult volunteers from Newfoundland and Labrador participated in the study. BMI and body fat percentage (%BF) were measured for all subjects following a 12-h fasting period. Subjects were categorized as underweight (UW), normal weight (NW), overweight (OW), or obese (OB) based on BMI and %BF criteria. Differences between the two methods were compared within gender and by age-groups. According to BMI criteria, 1.2% of women were classified as UW, 44.2% as NW, 34.2% as OW, and 20.3% as OB. When women were classified according to %BF criteria, 2.2% were UW, 29.6% were NW, 30.9% were OW, and 37.1% were OB. The overall discrepancy between the two methods for women was substantial at 34.7% (14.6% for NW and 16.8% for OB, P < 0.001). In men, the overall discrepancy was 35.2% between BMI and DXA (17.6% for OW and 13.5% for OB, P < 0.001). Misclassification by BMI was dependent on age, gender, and adiposity status. In conclusion, BMI misclassified adiposity status in approximately one-third of women and men compared with DXA. Caution should be taken when BMI is used in clinical and scientific research as well as clinical practice.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".