Interpretation of Body Mass Index in Children with CKD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Clinical practice guidelines recommend that body mass index (BMI) in children with CKD be expressed relative to height-age (BMI-height-age-z) rather than chronologic age (BMI-age-z) to account for delayed growth and sexual maturation. This approach has not been validated. This study sought to (1) compare children who have CKD with healthy children regarding the relationships between BMI-age-z and each of relative lean mass (LM) and adiposity and (2) determine whether BMI-height-age-z reflects relative LM and adiposity in CKD in the same way that BMI-age-z does in healthy children. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: In a cross-sectional study, dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry was used to assess whole-body fat mass (FM) and LM in 143 participants with CKD and 958 healthy participants (age, 5-21 years); FM and LM were expressed as sex-specific Z-scores relative to height (LM-height-z, FM-height-z), with healthy participants as the reference. BMI-age-z and BMI-height-age-z were determined using the 2000 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reference data. RESULTS: Compared with healthy children of the same sex, age, race, and BMI-age-z, LM-height-z was significantly higher in males with all CKD stages (by 0.41-0.43 SDs) and in females with mild to moderate CKD (by 0.38 SD); FM-height-z was significantly higher in both males (by 0.26 SD) and females (by 0.52 SD) with severe CKD. Underestimation of relative LM and adiposity was improved by expressing BMI relative to height-age. CONCLUSIONS: In children with CKD, BMI-height-age-z reflects relative LM and adiposity in the same way that BMI-age-z does in healthy children.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".