The effect of adiposity on the relationship between indicators of maturity in peri-pubertal children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although the relation between body fatness and maturation has been the subject of much research, somatic maturity as assessed by sex-specific regression equations, has yet to be investigated in a population of overweight and obese children. AIM: To examine whether adiposity affects the relationship between somatic and skeletal maturity in peri-pubertal children and if increased adiposity is related to earlier maturation. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A total of 172 girls and boys (12.8 ± 0.9 years of age) participated in the study. Participants were categorized as normal weight (NW, < 85(th) percentile) or overweight/obese (OW/OB, ≥ 85(th) percentile) based on body mass index and matched for chronological and skeletal age. Skeletal age was assessed across the radial and ulnar epiphyses using quantitative ultrasound. Somatic maturity was assessed as years from age of peak height velocity (aPHV), estimated using prediction equations. Peripheral adiposity was determined by the sum of two skin-folds. RESULTS: Years from aPHV was significantly higher (p < 0.001) in OW/OB girls, but not in OW/OB boys. Skeletal age was associated with years from aPHV in NW and OW/OB boys (r = 0.87 vs 0.86, p < 0.001) and girls (r = 0.83 vs 0.72, p < 0.001). Among peri-pubertal youth of similar chronological and skeletal age, OW/OB girls were more somatically mature than their NW peers. CONCLUSION: It is concluded that excess peripheral adiposity in girls may affect the estimated somatic maturity, as reflected in years from aPHV.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".