MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412712238 · doi:10.1016/j.ajcnut.2025.05.022

Methodological standards for body composition—an expert-endorsed guide for research and clinical applications: levels, models, and terminology

2025· review· en· W4412712238 on OpenAlexafffund
Carla M. Prado, Marı́a Cristina González, Kristina Norman, Rocco Barazzoni, Tommy Cederholm, Charlene Compher, Gordon L. Jensen, Takashi Abe, Thiago Gonzalez Barbosa-Silva, Anja Bosy‐Westphal, Owen Carmichael, Carrie P. Earthman, William J. Evans, David A. Fields, Laurence Genton, Peng Hu, Murat Kara, Jennifer L. Miles‐Chan, Marina Mourtzakis, M J Müller, Camila E. Orsso, Stany Perkisas, Luís B. Sardinha, John Shepherd, Mario Siervo, Boyd J. Strauss, Yosuke Yamada, Shankuan Zhu, Steven B. Heymsfield

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Clinical Nutrition · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBody Composition Measurement Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of Alberta
FundersConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsTerminologyComposition (language)Computer scienceManagement scienceData scienceEngineeringLinguisticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Body composition assessment is widely used in both research and clinical practice, yet confusion over basic concepts and terminology persists, leading to inaccurate assessments, comparisons, and interpretations. To address this concern, an international working group was formed to clarify basic concepts, standardize terminology, and provide guidance on the use and interpretation of body composition assessment. This initial publication addresses methodological standards, focusing on summarizing body composition levels and models, and introducing standardized terms and definitions. Body composition is organized into 5 distinct levels, ranging from atomic to whole-body, with each higher level encompassing the components of the preceding less complex levels. As a result, terms that describe components at different levels should not be used interchangeably. For example, the use of the molecular-level term "lean body mass" is discouraged because it inaccurately refers to fat-free mass (FFM), lean mass, or lean soft tissue (LST). FFM includes all compartments at the molecular level except fat (nonpolar lipids; mainly triglycerides), and FFM also contains nonfat (or polar) lipids. The term "lean mass" is equivalent to FFM, but not to LST, as FFM includes bone mineral content. Additionally, skeletal muscle is classified at the tissue-organ level and should not be confused with the molecular-level components FFM and LST. Likewise, fat mass and adipose tissue are different components: fat mass, mainly triglycerides, is assessed at the molecular level, whereas adipose tissue is measured at the tissue-organ level. Models are also specific to each level. It is crucial for researchers and clinicians to have a clear understanding of what each body component entails and to use accurate terminology to ensure precise assessment, reporting, and interpretation of body composition data.

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)0.180
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.325
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.820
Threshold uncertainty score0.953

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1800.325
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.007
Bibliometrics0.0180.017
Science and technology studies0.0030.008
Scholarly communication0.0130.008
Open science0.0120.010
Research integrity0.0080.021
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.021

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 head0.732
GPT teacher head0.675
Teacher spread0.057 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
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

Citations48
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Clinical NutritionSame topicBody Composition Measurement TechniquesFrench-language works237,207