Assessing Body Composition among 3‐ to 8‐Year‐Old Children: Anthropometry, BIA, and DXA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the inter-relationships of body composition variables derived from simple anthropometry [BMI and skinfolds (SFs)], bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA), and dual energy x-ray (DXA) in young children. RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES: Seventy-five children (41 girls, 34 boys) 3 to 8 years of age were assessed for body composition by the following methods: BMI, SF thickness, BIA, and DXA. DXA served as the criterion measure. Predicted percentage body fat (%BF), fat-free mass (FFM; kilograms), and fat mass (FM; kilograms) were derived from SF equations [Slaughter (SL)1 and SL2, Deurenberg (D) and Dezenberg] and BIA. Indices of truncal fatness were also determined from anthropometry. RESULTS: Repeated measures ANOVA showed significant differences among the methods for %BF, FFM, and FM. All methods, except the D equation (p = 0.08), significantly underestimated measured %BF (p < 0.05). In general, correlations between the BMI and estimated %BF were moderate (r = 0.61 to 0.75). Estimated %BF from the SL2 also showed a high correlation with DXA %BF (r = 0.82). In contrast, estimated %BF derived from SFs showed a low correlation with estimated %BF derived from BIA (r = 0.38); likewise, the correlation between DXA %BF and BIA %BF was low (r = 0.30). Correlations among indicators of truncal fatness ranged from 0.43 to 0.98. DISCUSSION: The results suggest that BIA has limited utility in estimating body composition, whereas BMI and SFs seem to be more useful in estimating body composition during the adiposity rebound. However, all methods significantly underestimated body fatness as determined by DXA, and, overall, the various methods and prediction equations are not interchangeable.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".