Generalizability of extracellular-to-intracellular fluid ratio using bio-impedance spectroscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Generalizability theory was used to investigate the score consistency of observed extracellular fluid/intracellular fluid (ECF/ICF) ratio measurements for both the global and leg-segmental bio-impedance spectroscopy methods. The test instrument used was a Xitron Hydra ECF/ICF Bio-Impedance Analyzer System, model 4200 (Xitron Technologies, San Diego, CA). Fifty able-bodied American men (17 to 72 years) and 50 able-bodied American women (17 to 76 years) volunteered as experimental subjects. Xitron continuous global and leg-segmental ECF/ICF procedures for testing were followed for assessing subjects in both the standing erect and lying supine postures. A two-facet, person-by-trial, completely crossed design was used, and all facets were treated as random. Data were independently analyzed for each method, each body posture and each sex group. The major findings of this study were: (1) the leg-segmental method was superior in producing the higher G-coefficients when compared to the global method regardless of gender or posture; (2) the global method resulted in higher G-coefficients in males compared to females regardless of posture; (3) when the global method was used, the relative and absolute error variances were higher for females while the opposite trend was observed when the segmental method was used and (4) when using the global method, the precision of the ECF/ICF ratio scores in females could be increased by simply using the mean of several trials (e.g., by using the mean of 5, 10 or more test trials).
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 | 0.020 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".