ArticlePediatric obesity2021
Anthropometry-based prediction of body composition in early infancy compared to air-displacement plethysmography.
Article in Pediatric obesity, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- An assessment of methods for measuring body composition in full-term infants: A systematic review.Pediatric research · 2026Pooled it
- Anthropometric prediction models of body composition in 3 to 24month old infants: a multicenter international study.European journal of clinical nutrition · 2024Observational
- Associations of appetitive traits with growth velocities from infancy to childhood.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Prediction of fat-free mass in a multi-ethnic cohort of infants using bioelectrical impedance: Validation against the PEA POD.Frontiers in nutrition · 2022Article
- Extensive Study of Breast Milk and Infant Growth: Protocol of the Cambridge Baby Growth and Breastfeeding Study (CBGS-BF).Nutrients · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAnthropometry-based equations are commonly used to estimate infant body composition. However, existing equations were designed for newborns or adolescents. We aimed to (a) derive new prediction equations in infancy against air-displacement plethysmography (ADP-PEA Pod) as the criterion, (b) validate the newly developed equations in an independent infant cohort and (c) compare them with published equations (Slaughter-1988, Aris-2013, Catalano-1995).
methodsCambridge Baby Growth Study (CBGS), UK, had anthropometry data at 6 weeks (N = 55) and 3 months (N = 64), including skinfold thicknesses (SFT) at four sites (triceps, subscapular, quadriceps and flank) and ADP-derived total body fat mass (FM) and fat-free mass (FFM). Prediction equations for FM and FFM were developed in CBGS using linear regression models and were validated in Sophia Pluto cohort, the Netherlands, (N = 571 and N = 447 aged 3 and 6 months, respectively) using Bland-Altman analyses to assess bias and 95% limits of agreement (LOA).
resultsCBGS equations consisted of sex, age, weight, length and SFT from three sites and explained 65% of the variance in FM and 79% in FFM. In Sophia Pluto, these equations showed smaller mean bias than the three published equations in estimating FM: mean bias (LOA) 0.008 (-0.489, 0.505) kg at 3 months and 0.084 (-0.545, 0.713) kg at 6 months. Mean bias in estimating FFM was 0.099 (-0.394, 0.592) kg at 3 months and -0.021 (-0.663, 0.621) kg at 6 months.
conclusionsCBGS prediction equations for infant FM and FFM showed better validity in an independent cohort at ages 3 and 6 months than existing equations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.