A Scoping Review of Instruments Used to Measure Weight and Body Composition in Infants Under 1 Year
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This scoping review identified existing outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) for weight and body composition in children ≤ 1 year of age and how they are used in clinical trials. This information will improve outcome selection in future trials. METHODS: We searched the EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO up to September 2023, previous reviews, and the TOPCHILD collaboration registry. Screening was conducted independently in duplicate. We included studies reporting trials including healthy, full-term infants ≤ 1 year of age reporting at least one weight, weight gain, and/or body composition OMI. Study and OMI characteristics were synthesized narratively. RESULTS: Seventy-two studies were included. Reported outcomes included weight (n = 71), changes in weight (n = 33), and body composition (n = 10). Six OMIs were used to measure infant weight, with undefined (n = 19) and electronic (n = 15) scales being the most common. Results for weight were mostly expressed as z scores relative to a population reference (n = 50). Five OMIs were used to assess infant weight gain, most frequently undefined weighing scales (n = 8) and electronic scales (n = 7), with results mostly expressed as changes in z scores relative to a population reference (n = 10). Eight body composition OMIs were identified; calipers (n = 5) and air displacement plethysmography (n = 3) were most commonly used. Body composition was predominantly presented as fat mass (FM) and fat-free mass (FFM) in kg (n = 5). OMIs were mostly administered in person by researchers, clinicians, or healthcare practitioners. CONCLUSIONS: Given the heterogeneity identified in this review, research is needed to select standardized, feasible, and reliable OMIs for infant anthropometric outcomes in trials.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".