MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3164113594 · doi:10.1111/cpf.12716

Test–retest reliability and validity of body composition methods in adults

2021· article· en· W3164113594 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Physiology and Functional Imaging · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBody Composition Measurement Techniques
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityUniversity of Regina
FundersRyerson University
KeywordsMedicineLimits of agreementStandard errorUltrasoundAnthropometryCalipersSkinfold thicknessBody mass indexBody fat percentageNuclear medicinePlethysmographReliability (semiconductor)Bland–Altman plotPhysical therapyInternal medicineMathematicsStatisticsRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Cost‐effective and efficient body composition measurement devices that are reliable and valid are necessary for identifying health risk as well as for understanding the effectiveness of lifestyle interventions. The objective of this study was to evaluate the test–retest reliability and validity of three body composition measurement devices. Forty‐nine adults (mean age (SD) = 31.5 (10.7) y; BMI = 23.5 (3.0) kg/m 2 ) completed a reference air displacement plethysmography (ADP) measure, and duplicate measures using skinfold callipers (Lange), ultrasound (BodyMetrix A‐mode) and a 3‐dimensional photonic scanner (3DPS; Fit3D ProScanner). Skinfold thickness was measured at seven sites using callipers and ultrasound; percent body fat (%BF) was then estimated using population‐specific algorithms. The 3DPS was used to measure body circumferences, and then %BF was estimated using its beta‐software. While skinfold callipers showed poor absolute reliability (mean differences (Δ) [95% CI] = 0.54% [0.22, 0.87], standard error of measurement (SEM) = 0.63%), ultrasound and the 3DPS showed excellent absolute (Δ = 0.17% [−0.25, 0.58], SEM = 0.78%; and Δ = −0.01% [−0.43, 0.40], SEM = 0.67%, respectively) and relative reliability (ICC 2,1 = 0.988 [0.979, 0.993]; and ICC 2,1 = 0.983 [0.968, 0.991], respectively). Compared to ADP ( n = 43), skinfold callipers underestimated %BF (Δ = −4.53 [−7.72, −1.34]; p = 0.003), while ultrasound (Δ = −0.32 [−3.51, 2.87]; p = 0.99) and the 3DPS (Δ = 1.06 [−2.12. 4.26]; p = 0.77) were not significantly different. Bland–Altman plots showed a minimal bias of ultrasound [95% limit of agreement (LOA) = −7.87, 7.23] and the 3DPS [95% LOA = −6.66, 8.79]. In conclusion, estimating %BF from subcutaneous fat measurements using ultrasound and body circumferences using a 3DPS may be reliable and valid methods that require minimal technician expertise.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.413
Threshold uncertainty score0.328

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.076
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.339 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it