The paediatric option for BodPod to assess body composition in preschool children: what fat-free mass density values should be used?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Air displacement plethysmography utilises a two-component model to assess body composition, which relies on assumptions regarding the density of fat-free mass (FFM). To date, there is no evidence as to whether Lohman's or Wells et al.'s FFM density values are more accurate in young children. Therefore, the aims of this study were to compare total body fat percentage (TBF%) assessed using the BodPod with both Lohman's and Wells et al.'s FFM density values with TBF% from the three-component (3C) model in forty healthy Swedish children aged 5·5 years. Average TBF% calculated using Lohman's FFM density values underestimated TBF% in comparison with the corresponding value assessed using the 3C model (22·2 (sd 5·7) and 25·1 (sd 5·5) %, respectively; P<0·001). No statistically significant difference was observed between TBF% assessed using Wells et al.'s FFM density values and the 3C model (24·9 (sd 5·5) and 25·1 (sd 5·5) %, respectively; P=0·614). The Bland and Altman plots for TBF% using both Lohman's and Wells et al.'s FFM density values did not show any bias across the range of body fatness (Lohman: r 0·056, P=0·733 and Wells et al.: r -0·006, P=0·970). These results indicate that Wells et al.'s FFM density values should be used when assessing body composition with the paediatric option for BodPod in 5-year-old children. However, future studies are needed to confirm these results in other populations, including a wider age range of children.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".