Validity of a simplified screening instrument for assessing overweight children in a dental setting: a cross sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Obesity, with its rising prevalence among Canadians and its estimated cost of $2 billion annually in Canada, is no longer considered a cosmetic issue, but a major health issue that imposes a great burden on the healthcare system and economy. This cross sectional study aims to evaluate the feasibility of identifying the weight status of 6 to 11 year-old children in a university dental clinic using a simplified overweight screening instrument. METHODS: One hundred sixty eight healthy children were enrolled. Weight and height were measured and overweight/obesity status was assessed using two techniques: 1) the 2007 World Health Organization Body Mass Index (BMI)-for-age reference Tables, 2) simplified overweight screening instrument without BMI calculation. Measures of overall, positive, and negative percent agreement between the two approaches were computed. RESULTS: The children's average weight, height, BMI and BMI z-score were respectively 32.6 ± 9.5 kg, 133.8 ± 10.7 cm, 17.8 ± 3.2, and 0.4 ± 1.0. The overall, positive, and negative percent agreement between the two screening approaches were respectively, 89%, 100%, and 83%. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated the feasibility and parental acceptance of weight, height and BMI measurement in a dental setting and evidence that supports the validity of a new simplified approach to assess children's weight status without having to compute BMI. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02637752 . Registered 18 December 2015.
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 | 0.012 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".