Validity of self‐reported recall of anthropometric measures in early life: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Overweight and obesity in early life are risk factors for many adult‐onset chronic diseases. The objective of this study was to assess the validity of self‐reported recall of early life anthropometric measures. A systematic review was conducted by searching four electronic databases (PubMed, ProQuest, EMBASE, and MEDLINE). Studies were eligible if they evaluated the validity or reliability of self‐reported recall by adults of their own body mass index, height, and/or weight during earlier life periods. Meta‐analyses were conducted to pool correlation coefficients and mean differences. There were 15 studies included with a total of 17 477 participants. The mean pooled difference between self‐reported recall of BMI compared with prospective measures was 0.06 kg/m 2 (95% CI, −0.62 to 0.73), and the pooled correlation coefficient was 0.72 (95% CI, 0.65‐0.79). Self‐reported weight was also strongly correlated with reference standard measures (pooled r = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.72‐0.90) with a small mean difference (0.87 kg; 95% CI, 0.19‐1.56; I 2 = 91%). Despite significant heterogeneity, the findings from this review suggest self‐reported recall of early life body mass index, height, and weight may be valid measures. This evidence may inform life‐course epidemiology studies considering the use of retrospective assessment of self‐reported anthropometry.
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 | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.042 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".