Validity of segmental bioelectrical impedance analysis for estimating fat-free mass in children including overweight individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the validity of segmental bioelectrical impedance (BI) analysis for predicting the fat-free masses (FFMs) of whole-body and body segments in children including overweight individuals. The FFM and impedance (Z) values of arms, trunk, legs, and whole body were determined using a dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and segmental BI analyses, respectively, in 149 boys and girls aged 6 to 12 years, who were divided into model-development (n = 74), cross-validation (n = 35), and overweight (n = 40) groups. Simple regression analysis was applied to (length)2/Z (BI index) for each of the whole-body and 3 segments to develop the prediction equations of the measured FFM of the related body part. In the model-development group, the BI index of each of the 3 segments and whole body was significantly correlated to the measured FFM (R2 = 0.867–0.932, standard error of estimation = 0.18–1.44 kg (5.9%–8.7%)). There was no significant difference between the measured and predicted FFM values without systematic error. The application of each equation derived in the model-development group to the cross-validation and overweight groups did not produce significant differences between the measured and predicted FFM values and systematic errors, with an exception that the arm FFM in the overweight group was overestimated. Segmental bioelectrical impedance analysis is useful for predicting the FFM of each of whole-body and body segments in children including overweight individuals, although the application for estimating arm FFM in overweight individuals requires a certain modification.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".