Assessment of body composition in pediatric intestinal failure: A comparison study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of the study was to compare bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) and skinfolds with dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) in the assessment of body composition of children with intestinal failure. DXA is the reference method for body composition assessment in clinical settings. METHODS: Children aged 1-18 years with intestinal failure whohave DXA as part of routine clinical monitoring were eligible. BIA measured total body water on the same day as DXA. Skinfold measurements were taken at four sites: triceps, biceps, subscapular, and suprailiac. Percentage of fat mass (%FM) and fat-free mass (%FFM) were derived from resistance and reactance measured by BIA by using age-specific equations. Percentage of FM was calculated from skinfold measures by using age-specific equations. Data on patient characteristics, intestinal failure-related factors, and feeding method were collected. Paired t test examined differences in %FM and %FFM and Bland-Altman analysis determined the agreement between BIA, skinfolds, and DXA. Marginal linear model assessed the effect of age, sex, and feeding method on the difference in body composition obtained between DXA and BIA and between DXA and skinfolds. RESULTS: Sixty-eight children with intestinal failure, mean age 8.9 ± 4.2 years, were studied. There was no difference between %FFM and %FM obtained by DXA and BIA (P = 0.26), with a mean bias (95% CI) of -0.69 (-1.9 to 0.5) for %FFM. Sex and age were individually and jointly associated with the bias observed between DXA and BIA (P < 0.05). Skinfold and DXA measurements were significantly different (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: BIA is an acceptable clinical tool for assessing body composition in pediatric intestinal failure.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".