Evaluation of anthropometric measures for assessment of cardiometabolic risk in early childhood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Waist-to-height ratio has been shown to be an important indicator of cardiometabolic risk. There are few studies evaluating this measure against existing measures of adiposity and cardiometabolic markers in early childhood. The objectives were: (i) to determine in young children the ability of waist-to-height ratio, BMI z-score, weight for length, and sum of skin fold thickness to predict cardiometabolic risk and (ii) to examine this association at ages 1, 3 and 5 years. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: A university hospital in Toronto, Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: Infants at 1 (n 406), 3 (n 112) and 5 years of age (n 94) born to mothers with and without gestational diabetes mellitus. RESULTS: Weight for length and BMI z-score demonstrated the strongest correlations with biochemical measures compared to waist-to-height ratio, including leptin (at 5 years, weight for length z-score: ρ = 0·65, P < 0·001; BMI z-score: ρ = 0·67, P < 0·001) and measures of insulin resistance (at 3 years, weight for length z-score: ρ = 0·25, P = 0·02; BMI z-score: ρ = 0·24, P = 0·02). The magnitude of associations between anthropometric measures and biochemical measures strengthened over time. Weight for length and BMI z-scores were moderately correlated with overall measures of fat mass as measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (ρ = 0·65, P = 0·00; ρ = 0·61, P = 0·01). CONCLUSIONS: Waist-to-height ratio was not superior to existing measures in predicting cardiometabolic risk in young children. BMI z-score is a preferred measure of adiposity between birth and 5 years of age.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".