MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4234848431 · doi:10.15442/apgr.19.2.9

Bioelectric impedance analysis versus prediction equations for percent body fat in healthy nigerian adults: correlation or conflict

2014· article· en· W4234848431 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Chidozie Emmanuel Mbada, Rufus Adesoji Adedoyin, Adebusola Oluwasanmi, Taofeek Olumide Awotidebe

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Physiotherapy and Global Researches · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBody Composition Measurement Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAfrican Population and Health Research CenterInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsBioelectrical impedance analysisCorrelationStatisticsMathematicsPsychologyMedicineBody mass indexInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and objective: There is dearth of studies on the validation of equations for predicting Percent Body Fat (PBF) in sub-Saharan Africa. This study compared Bio-electrical Impedance Analysis (BIA) estimated PBF and PBF predicted from equations. Materials and Methods: 1,350…Read more ›

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.344 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Physiotherapy and Global ResearchesSame topicBody Composition Measurement TechniquesFrench-language works237,207