Development of an Anthropometric Prediction Model for Fat-Free Mass and Muscle Mass in Elite Athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The monitoring of body composition is common in sports given the association with performance. Surface anthropometry is often preferred when monitoring changes for its convenience, practicality, and portability. However, anthropometry does not provide valid estimates of absolute lean tissue in elite athletes. The aim of this investigation was to develop anthropometric models for estimating fat-free mass (FFM) and skeletal muscle mass (SMM) using an accepted reference physique assessment technique. Sixty-four athletes across 18 sports underwent surface anthropometry and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) assessment. Anthropometric models for estimating FFM and SMM were developed using forward selection multiple linear regression analysis and contrasted against previously developed equations. Most anthropometric models under review performed poorly compared with DXA. However, models derived from athletic populations such as the Withers equation demonstrated a stronger correlation with DXA estimates of FFM (r = .98). Equations that incorporated skinfolds with limb girths were more effective at explaining the variance in DXA estimates of lean tissue (Sesbreno FFM [R2 = .94] and Lee SMM [R2 = .94] models). The Sesbreno equation could be useful for estimating absolute indices of lean tissue across a range of physiques if an accepted option like DXA is inaccessible. Future work should explore the validity of the Sesbreno model across a broader range of physiques common to athletic populations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".