Accuracy of maternal reports of pre-schoolers’ weights and heights as estimates of BMI values
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Data is lacking on the reliability of weight and height for young children as reported by parents participating in population-based studies. We analysed the accuracy of parental reports of children's weights and heights as estimates of body mass index, and evaluated the factors associated with the misclassification of overweight and obese children. METHODS: Analyses were conducted on a population-based birth cohort of 1549 4-year-old children from the province of Québec (Canada) in 2002. Mothers reported weights and heights for the children as part of the regular annual data collection. Within the following 3 months, children's weights and heights were measured at home as part of a nutrition survey. RESULTS: This study indicates that mothers overestimate their children's weight more than their height, resulting in an overestimation of overweight children of more than 3% in the studied population. Only 58% of the children were reported as overweight/obese with reported values. Maternal misreporting is more important for boys than girls, and for low socioeconomic status children compared with high socioeconomic status children. CONCLUSIONS: Research on the prevalence of overweight and obesity has often used self-reported measures of height and weight to estimate BMI. However, the results emphasize the importance of collecting measured data in childhood studies of overweight and obesity at the population level.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".