Identifying the best body mass index metric to assess adiposity change in children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Although dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) is the preferred method to estimate adiposity, body mass index (BMI) is often used as a proxy. However, the ability of BMI to measure adiposity change among youth is poorly evidenced. This study explored which metrics of BMI change have the highest correlations with different metrics of DEXA change. METHODS: Data were from the Quebec Adipose and Lifestyle Investigation in Youth cohort, a prospective cohort of children (8-10 years at recruitment) from Québec, Canada (n=557). Height and weight were measured by trained nurses at baseline (2008) and follow-up (2010). Metrics of BMI change were raw (ΔBMIkg/m(2) ), adjusted for median BMI (ΔBMIpercentage) and age-sex-adjusted with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention growth curves expressed as centiles (ΔBMIcentile) or z-scores (ΔBMIz-score). Metrics of DEXA change were raw (total fat mass; ΔFMkg), per cent (ΔFMpercentage), height-adjusted (fat mass index; ΔFMI) and age-sex-adjusted z-scores (ΔFMz-score). Spearman's rank correlations were derived. RESULTS: Correlations ranged from modest (0.60) to strong (0.86). ΔFMkg correlated most highly with ΔBMIkg/m(2) (r = 0.86), ΔFMI with ΔBMIkg/m(2) and ΔBMIpercentage (r = 0.83-0.84), ΔFMz-score with ΔBMIz-score (r = 0.78), and ΔFMpercentage with ΔBMIpercentage (r = 0.68). Correlations with ΔBMIcentile were consistently among the lowest. CONCLUSIONS: In 8-10-year-old children, absolute or per cent change in BMI is a good proxy for change in fat mass or FMI, and BMI z-score change is a good proxy for FM z-score change. However change in BMI centile and change in per cent fat mass perform less well and are not recommended.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".