Evaluation of the accuracy of common weight estimation formulae in a Zambian paediatric surgical population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Limited resources and access to healthcare in sub-Saharan Africa are associated with high rates of malnourished children, although many countries globally are demonstrating increasing childhood obesity. This study evaluated how well current age- or height-based formulae estimate the weight of children undergoing surgery in Zambia. All children under 14 years of age presenting for elective surgery at the University Teaching Hospital, Lusaka, had both height and weight measured. Their actual weight was compared against estimated weight from various formulae. The Broselow tape outperformed all the age-based formulae, demonstrating the lowest median percentage error of -5.8%, with 46.0% of estimates falling within 10% of the actual measured weight (p < 0.001). Of the 1111 children who were eligible for World Health Organization growth standard appraisal, 88 (8%) met the weight criteria for severe acute malnutrition. Our results are consistent with other studies in finding that the Broselow tape is the best estimator of weight in a lower middle-income country, followed by the original Advanced Paediatric Life Support formula if the Broselow tape is unavailable.
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 | 0.007 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".