Agreement between self-/home-measured and assessor-measured waist circumference at three sites in adolescents/children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to assess the validity of the self-/home-measured waist circumference (WC) method in children/adolescents at three sites: at the level of the umbilicus, immediately above the iliac crest, and at the midpoint of the lower margin of the last palpable rib and top of the iliac crest. A cross-sectional study of 3360 Hong Kong Chinese children/adolescents was conducted, with 2980 (88.7%) participants included in the final analysis. The WC of children aged 6 to 9 was measured at the three sites by their parent/guardian at home followed by measurement by trained assessors at school within one week. Children/adolescents between the ages of 10 and 17 self-measured their WC at the three sites during school hours, followed by measurements by the trained assessors. Bland-Altman limits of agreement (LOA) analysis was performed to evaluate between-measurement agreement. The difference between assessor- and self-/home-measured WC was defined as ≤ ±2.5 cm for the upper and lower LOA at all three sites as an a priori criterion based on the assessor-measured inter-rater results. The results showed that most measurements (about 96%) at each site was within 95% of the LOA. Of the three measurement sites, the smallest LOA interval width was found at the umbilicus site, with an upper LOA of 5.08 and 7.13 and lower LOA of -2.61 and -3.43 in boys and girls, respectively. In conclusion, the range of LOA was relatively large, exceeding the acceptable limits of the predefined a priori criterion of upper and lower LOA, and thus suggesting disagreement between the two measurement methods. The use of WC as a measure of abdominal obesity in clinical practice/epidemiological studies should be restricted to measurement by trained health professionals/research staff.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".