Body Composition in Adopted and Biological Siblings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Body density through underwater weighing and 6 skinfolds (triceps, biceps, subscapular, suprailiac, abdominal and medial calf) were measured in 871 biological and adopted siblings of French descent from the greater Quebec city area. These individuals belonged to 49 sibships of adopted sibs, 71 sibships of unrelated individuals living together including adoptees, 35 «sibships» of first degree cousins, 229 sibships of biological brothers and sisters, 66 sibships of DZ twins and 83 sibships of MZ twins. Age of subjects ranged from 8 to 26 years. Age and sex accounted from 14% to 48% of the variance in body composition measurements, with the exception of fat free weight (71%). Residual scores of age and sex were submitted to analysis of variance and correlation analysis. The ratio of the between sibships to the within sibship means of squares reached significance (p ≤ .05) for almost all measurements in the MZ, DZ, biological and cousin sibships, for the skinfolds but not for body density, fat free weight and the ratio of subcutaneous fat to total fat mass in the unrelated sibships, and for none of the measurements in the adoptive sibships. Interclass correlations could be computed in a maximum of 80 pairs of adopted sibs, 120 pairs of unrelated sibs, 95 pairs of cousins, 370 pairs of biological sibs, 69 pairs of DZ twins and 87 pairs of MZ twins. None of the coefficients reached 0.20 (p < 0.05) in the pairs of adopted or unrelated sibs. On the other hand, correlations were often significant in the pairs of cousins, particularly for the skinfold measurements. The same coefficients were generally significant and increasing from the pairs of brothers and sisters to the pairs of DZ twins and MZ twins. This pattern was particularly clear for several individual skinfolds, the extremity and the trunk skinfolds, the ratio of extremity to trunk subcutaneous fat and fat free weight. Genetic effects reaching about 0.40 and above were found for measurements of subcutaneous fat, fat distribution, body density and fat free weight. Twin data yielded higher and often unrealistic estimates of heritability probably because of the differential effects of the common environment in MZ and DZ pairs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".