ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2025
Development and Validation of a Simple Model to Predict Patient Height.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Height recorded in electronic health records (EHRs) is used extensively in diagnosis and treatment, either in isolation or as a component of body-mass index (BMI), but is often falsely high because many adults overestimate their height. Statistical models to predict height could therefore improve population health, but to date models have required extensive input and have not been externally validated. Methods: We used the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) to develop sex-stratified predictive models for examiner-measured height based on self-reported height and age in a random 90% sample of data. We internally validated the model in a held-out 10% sample and externally validated the model in two cohorts: The National Adolescent to Adult Longitudinal Health Study (Add Health) and the University of Michigan Health and Retirement Study (HRS). We assessed discrimination with C-index, calibration by visual inspection of calibration plots, and accuracy using root mean square error (RMSE). Results: Models were trained using 62,032 NHANES subjects (51.9% women, 21.7% Black, 23.9% Hispanic or Latino, with median age 48 [IQR 31 - 64]), and evaluated in the NHANES held-out test set (n=6,846), Add Health (n=5,749), and HRS (n=5,655). Models demonstrated excellent discrimination in all validation cohorts (C-index range 0.88 - 0.89). Models were well-calibrated in all validation cohorts. Model-predicted height demonstrated lower root mean square error (RMSE) compared to self-reported height in all validation cohorts and when stratified by race and ethnicity, with greatest improvements in participants aged 45 and over. Conclusions and Relevance: A model requiring minimal input data improves estimation of height over self-reported height at least as much as more complex models across stratifications of sex, age, race and ethnicity in internal validation, and is the first model to improve height estimation that has demonstrated external validity.
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.