Resting Energy Expenditure of Children and Adolescents With Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The mainstay of treatment for pediatric nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is lifestyle modification, which includes dietary changes that lead to slow but sustained weight loss or weight stabilization in growing children. Accurate estimation of energy requirements is necessary to achieve this goal. The objective of this study was to assess the accuracy of the most commonly used equations in predicting the resting energy expenditure (REE) of children with NAFLD. METHODS: This was a retrospective study performed in a single institution. The predictive accuracy of various equations was assessed by comparing their estimates against the measured REE obtained with indirect calorimetry. Accuracy was defined as an estimate within 10% of measured REE. RESULTS: Fifty-six children (70% male; 52% white and 36% Asian) with a median age of 13 years were included. The median measured REE was 1829 kcal/d. Of the equations studied, the Schofield had the smallest average bias (-32 kcal/d; confidence interval, -121 to 56). The Schofield and Molnar equations were the most accurate, providing REE estimates within 10% of measured in 59% of cases. The remaining equations had lower and variable predictive accuracy. The use of adjusted body weight in predictive equations did not improve the predictive accuracy. CONCLUSION: In a cohort of children and adolescents with NAFLD, the Schofield and Molnar equations performed best in predicting energy expenditure. However, predictive equations were often inaccurate, suggesting that clinicians should interpret their results with caution and consider using indirect calorimetry when available.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".