Familial resemblance in fatness and fat distribution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the study was to estimate the degree of familial resemblance in anthropometric indicators of fatness and fat distribution. The sample consisted of 327 Caucasian participants from 102 nuclear families. Indicators of fatness included the body mass index (BMI), the sum of six skinfolds (SF6: triceps + biceps + medial calf + subscapular + suprailiac + abdominal), and waist circumference (WAIST), while indicators of fat distribution included WAIST adjusted for BMI (WAIST(ADJ)), the trunk-to-extremity skinfold ratio, adjusted for SF6 (TER(ADJ)), and the first principal component of skinfolds, adjusted for the mean skinfold of the individual (PC1). A general familial correlation model was fit to the data, and a series of nested reduced models were also fit so as to test hypotheses about familial resemblance. The hypothesis of no familial resemblance (all familial correlations are zero) was rejected for all phenotypes, indicating that fatness and fat distribution aggregate within families. For the three indicators of fatness (BMI, SF6, and WAIST), the sibling and parent-offspring correlations were significant. Further, there were no sex or generation differences in the familial correlations. For the three indicators of fat distribution (TER(ADJ), WAIST(ADJ), and PC1), there was no parent-offspring resemblance; sibling resemblance was significant for TER(ADJ) and PC1. Further, spouse resemblance was not significant for WAIST(ADJ), but was for TER(ADJ) and PC1. For both WAIST(ADJ) and PC1 there were significant sex differences in the familial correlations. A combination of models including no sex or generation differences and no spouse resemblance was the most parsimonious model for BMI, SF6, and TER(ADJ). The environmental model (all correlations equal) was the most parsimonious for WAIST, the model of no sibling resemblance was the most parsimonious for WAIST(ADJ), and the model of no spousal resemblance was the most parsimonious for PC1. Estimates of maximal heritability range from 46-60% for fatness and from 29-48% for fat distribution, independent of overall fatness, suggesting that in this sample the heritability of fatness is greater than that for fat distribution. Further, the pattern of correlations, which generally includes no spousal resemblance but significant parent-offspring and sibling correlations, suggests the role of genes in explaining at least part of the heritability. Am. J. Hum. Biol. 12:395-404, 2000. Copyright 2000 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".