Validity of foot-to-foot bioelectrical impedance analysis in overweight and obese children and parents.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate the validity of foot-to-foot bioelectrical impedance analysis (FF-BIA) in the measurement of body composition in overweight and obese children and their parents by comparison to dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). METHODS: Seventeen, 7-12 year old overweight and obese children (6 boys, 11 girls) and 17 parents (5 fathers, 12 mothers) were evaluated for body composition with FF-BIA and DXA. Measures of percent body fat (PBF), fat mass (FM) and fat free mass (FFM) derived from FF-BIA and DXA were compared. Measures of validity were determined by Pearson correlations between FF-BIA and DXA, paired t-tests to assess mean differences, as well as biases and limits of agreement using the Bland Altman tests. RESULTS: FF-BIA produced estimates of body composition that were highly correlated with DXA in overweight and obese children and parents. For children, the correlations for PBF, FM, and FFM were 0.85, 0.97, and 0.94, respectively. For parents, the correlations for PBF, FM, and FFM were 0.92, 0.97, and 0.91, respectively. However, mean differences between FF-BIA and DXA were significant in children but not in parents. Bland-Altman tests of agreement showed moderate to large within-subject differences in body composition variables between FF-BIA and DXA. CONCLUSIONS: FF-BIA is strongly related to DXA in the measurement of body composition in both overweight and obese preadolescent children and parents, but the two measures may not be used interchangeably. Although FF-BIA may lack the precision to assess small changes in body composition in overweight and obese individuals, it is appropriate for epidemiological use.
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 | 0.005 | 0.032 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".