Assessment of body composition in pediatric overweight and obesity: A systematic review of the reliability and validity of common techniques
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate measurement of body composition is required to improve health outcomes in children and adolescents with overweight or obesity. This systematic review aimed to summarize the reliability and validity of field and laboratory body composition techniques employed in pediatric obesity studies to facilitate technique selection for research and clinical practice implementation. A systematic search in MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, CINAHL, and SPORTDiscus from inception up to December 2019 was conducted, using a combination of the following concepts: body composition, pediatric overweight/obesity, and reliability/validity. The search strategy resulted in 66 eligible articles reporting reliability (19.7%), agreement between body composition techniques cross sectionally (80.3%), and/or diagnostic test accuracy (10.6%) in children and adolescents with overweight or obesity (mean age range = 7.0-16.5 years). Skinfolds, air-displacement plethysmography (ADP), dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), and ultrasound presented as reliable techniques. DXA, ADP, and isotope dilution showed similar and the best agreement with reference standards. Compared with these laboratory techniques, the validity of estimating body composition by anthropometric equations, skinfolds, and BIA was inferior. In conclusion, the assessment of body composition by laboratory techniques cannot be replaced by field techniques due to introduction of measurement errors, which potentially conceal actual changes in body components.
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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it