MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Percentile Curves for Anthropometric Measures for Canadian Children and Youth

2015· article· en· W945120728 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Stefan Kuhle, Bryan Maguire, Nicole Ata, David C. Hamilton

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaIWK Health CentreCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchDalhousie University
KeywordsPercentileWaist-to-height ratioOverweightBody mass indexWaistDemographyAnthropometryObesityMedicineChildhood obesityGerontologyStatisticsMathematicsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Body mass index (BMI) is commonly used to assess a child's weight status but it does not provide information about the distribution of body fat. Since the disease risks associated with obesity are related to the amount and distribution of body fat, measures that assess visceral or subcutaneous fat, such as waist circumference (WC), waist-to-height ratio (WHtR), or skinfolds thickness may be more suitable. The objective of this study was to develop percentile curves for BMI, WC, WHtR, and sum of 5 skinfolds (SF5) in a representative sample of Canadian children and youth. The analysis used data from 4115 children and adolescents between 6 and 19 years of age that participated in the Canadian Health Measures Survey Cycles 1 (2007/2009) and 2 (2009/2011). BMI, WC, WHtR, and SF5 were measured using standardized procedures. Age- and sex-specific centiles were calculated using the LMS method and the percentiles that intersect the adult cutpoints for BMI, WC, and WHtR at age 18 years were determined. Percentile curves for all measures showed an upward shift compared to curves from the pre-obesity epidemic era. The adult cutoffs for overweight and obesity corresponded to the 72nd and 91st percentile, respectively, for both sexes. The current study has presented for the first time percentile curves for BMI, WC, WHtR, and SF5 in a representative sample of Canadian children and youth. The percentile curves presented are meant to be descriptive rather than prescriptive as associations with cardiovascular disease markers or outcomes were not assessed.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.115

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0150.014
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.190 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations26
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet→French-language works237,207→