Stages of Biological Development across Age: An Analysis of Canadian Health Measure Survey 2007–2011
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The stages of biological development are not clearly defined despite the fact that they have been used to refer to concepts such as adolescence and aging. This study aimed to (1) propose and test a framework to search for stages of representative components and determine stages of stability and transition, (2) identify stages of biological development based on health questionnaire and biomarker data, and (3) interpret the major trajectories in a health and biomarker database. METHODS: This study analyzed the data on the Canadian Health Measures Survey (CHMS) interviewees from cycle 1 to 3 (2007-2013) in Canada. We selected 282 variables containing information from questionnaire and on biomarkers after removing redundant variables based on high correlation. Fifty-nine nominal variables were replaced by 122 binominal variables, leaving 345 variables for analysis. Principal component (PC) analysis was conducted to summarize the data and the loadings were used to interpret the PCs. A stable stage was assumed to be the age groups without significantly different values of PCs. RESULTS: > 0.05 for all). The leading variable, in terms of the variance contributed to PC1, was time spent in physical activities, followed by variables related to alcohol consumption, and smoking. The 13 leading contributors to PC2 variances were all lung function measures. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: There are stages of stability and transition across all age groups based on the first PCs. The first and second PCs are related to physical development and lung function. The identification of stable stages is the first step to understanding how human biology develops in a population perspective and will be important for research that relies on a research population with similar characteristics to draw samples for observation or intervention.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".