Validation of predictive equations for resting energy expenditure in treatment-seeking adults with overweight and obesity: Measured versus estimated
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The quantification of resting energy expenditure (REE) in patients with obesity is an important measure. We aimed to evaluate the validity of predictive equations in estimating REE compared with indirect calorimetry (IC) in treatment-seeking Arab adults with overweight or obesity. Twenty-three predictive equations were compared with REE values measured by IC (Vmax Encore 229) in 89 adult participants with overweight or obesity (mean age = 40.62 ± 15.96 years and mean body mass index [BMI] = 35.02 ± 4.60 kg/m2) referred to the Department of Nutrition and Dietetics of Beirut Arab University (Lebanon). The accuracy of the predictive equations was evaluated on the basis of whether the percentage prediction was within 10% of the measured REE, and the mean difference between predicted and measured values (bias). The Bland–Altman method was used to assess the agreement between the predicted and measured values. The equations that demonstrated the closest agreement with IC were the De La Cruz equation in males (accurate predictions: 68.2%; bias: ?19.52 kcal/day) and the Mifflin equation in females (accurate prediction: 61.2%; bias: ?36.43 kcal/day). In conclusion, we suggest that these two equations produce the least biased estimations for REE in this population.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".