MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Peer Review #2 of "Percentile curves for skinfold thickness for Canadian children and youth (v0.1)"

2016· peer-review· en· W4234679627 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Stefan Kuhle, Jillian Ashley‐Martin, Bryan Maguire, David C. Hamilton, Jillian Ashley

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepeer-review
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicTextile materials and evaluations
Canadian institutionsIzaak Walton Killam Health CentreDalhousie University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchDalhousie University
KeywordsPercentileSkinfold thicknessPsychologyMathematicsStatisticsMedicineBody weightInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Skinfold thickness (SFT) measurements are a reliable and feasible method for assessing body fat in children but their use and interpretation is hindered by the scarcity of reference values in representative populations of children. The objective of the present study was to develop age-and sex-specific percentile curves for five SFT measures (biceps, triceps, subscapular, suprailiac, medial calf) in a representative population of Canadian children and youth. Methods: We analyzed data from 3938 children and adolescents between 6 and 19 years of age who participated in the Canadian Health Measures Survey cycles 1 (2007/2009) and 2 (2009/2011). Standardized procedures were used to measure SFT. Age-and sex-specific centiles for SFT were calculated using the GAMLSS method. Results: Percentile curves were materially different in absolute value and shape for boys and girls. Percentile girls in girls steadily increased with age whereas percentile curves in boys were characterized by a pubertal centered peak. Conclusions:

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.536
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTextile materials and evaluationsFrench-language works237,207