Validity of the relative fat mass pediatric index (RFMp) for the analysis of body composition in physically active youths at different stages of biological maturation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The paediatric relative fat mass (RFMp) index was valid for analysis of percent body fat (BF%). However, the validation did not consider biological maturation (BM) stages. The present study aimed to verify the validity of the RFMp index in the estimation of BF% in children and adolescents of both sexes at different stages of BM. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted with a sample of 146 young (males: 64.5%. females: 35.5%. age: 13.0 ± 2.2 years) practising sports modalities. We tested the validity of four RFMp equations (1: for boys aged 8-14 years; 2: for girls aged 8-14 years; 3: for both sexes aged 8-14 years; and 4: for both sexes aged 15-19 years) to analyse BF% using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry as a reference method. BM was analysed by peak height velocity (PHV). Thus, we created subgroups by BM stage (pre-PHV, circum-PHV and post-PHV). RESULTS: Analyses of agreement between methods showed that only the RFMp-3 equation was reliable to analyse BF% in subjects of both sexes aged 8-14 years at the circum-PHV BM stage (proportion bias 95% confidence interval = -0.3 to 0.5, p = 0.7. concordance correlation coefficient = 0.3; validity = 0.9). CONCLUSIONS: The RFMp equation developed for the paediatric population of both sexes aged 8-14 years was valid for predicting BF% in children and adolescents of both sexes at the Circum-PHV stage of the BM.
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 | 0.010 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".