BACKGROUND/AIMS: The objective of our study was to compare the fit of four growth models for weight and height in contemporary US children between birth and 9 years. METHODS: In Project Viva, we collected weight and height growth data between birth and 9 years. We compared the Jenss model, the adapted Jenss model that adds a quadratic term, and the Reed 1st and 2nd order models. We used the log likelihood ratio test to compare nested models and the Akaike (AIC)/Bayesian information criterion (BIC) to compare nonnested models. RESULTS: For weight and height, the adapted Jenss model had a better fit than the Jenss model (for weight: p < 0.0001), and the Reed 2nd order model had a better fit than the Reed 1st order model (for weight: p < 0.0001). Compared with the Reed 2nd order model, the adapted Jenss model had a better fit for both weight (adapted Jenss vs. Reed 2nd order, AIC: 66,974 vs. 82,791, BIC: 67,066 vs. 82,883) and height (adapted Jenss vs. Reed 2nd order, AIC: 87,108 vs. 87,612, BIC: 87,196 vs. 87,700). CONCLUSIONS: In this pre-birth study of children aged 0-9 years, for both weight and height the adapted Jenss model presented the best fit of all four tested models.
BACKGROUND/AIMS: The objective of our study was to compare the fit of four growth models for weight and height in contemporary US children between birth and 9 years. METHODS: In Project Viva, we collected weight and height growth data between birth and 9 years. We compared the Jenss model, the adapted Jenss model that adds a quadratic term, and the Reed 1st and 2nd order models. We used the log likelihood ratio test to compare nested models and the Akaike (AIC)/Bayesian information criterion (BIC) to compare nonnested models. RESULTS: For weight and height, the adapted Jenss model had a better fit than the Jenss model (for weight: p < 0.0001), and the Reed 2nd order model had a better fit than the Reed 1st order model (for weight: p < 0.0001). Compared with the Reed 2nd order model, the adapted Jenss model had a better fit for both weight (adapted Jenss vs. Reed 2nd order, AIC: 66,974 vs. 82,791, BIC: 67,066 vs. 82,883) and height (adapted Jenss vs. Reed 2nd order, AIC: 87,108 vs. 87,612, BIC: 87,196 vs. 87,700). CONCLUSIONS: In this pre-birth study of children aged 0-9 years, for both weight and height the adapted Jenss model presented the best fit of all four tested models.
Authors: Kate Tilling; Neil M Davies; Emily Nicoli; Yoav Ben-Shlomo; Michael S Kramer; Rita Patel; Emily Oken; Richard M Martin Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2011-06-01 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Emily Oken; Andrea A Baccarelli; Diane R Gold; Ken P Kleinman; Augusto A Litonjua; Dawn De Meo; Janet W Rich-Edwards; Sheryl L Rifas-Shiman; Sharon Sagiv; Elsie M Taveras; Scott T Weiss; Mandy B Belfort; Heather H Burris; Carlos A Camargo; Susanna Y Huh; Christos Mantzoros; Margaret G Parker; Matthew W Gillman Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2014-03-16 Impact factor: 7.196
Authors: Xiaozhong Wen; Ken Kleinman; Matthew W Gillman; Sheryl L Rifas-Shiman; Elsie M Taveras Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2012-03-29 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Alexander Frenzel; Hans Binder; Nadja Walter; Kerstin Wirkner; Markus Loeffler; Henry Loeffler-Wirth Journal: NPJ Aging Mech Dis Date: 2020-03-24
Authors: Jonathan Y Bernard; Mya-Thway Tint; Izzuddin M Aris; Ling-Wei Chen; Phaik Ling Quah; Kok Hian Tan; George Seow-Heong Yeo; Marielle V Fortier; Fabian Yap; Lynette Shek; Yap-Seng Chong; Peter D Gluckman; Keith M Godfrey; Philip C Calder; Mary F F Chong; Michael S Kramer; Jérémie Botton; Yung Seng Lee Journal: Prostaglandins Leukot Essent Fatty Acids Date: 2017-06-09 Impact factor: 4.006
Authors: Meghan B Smith; Jacqueline Ho; Lihong Ma; Miryoung Lee; Stefan A Czerwinski; Tanya L Glenn; David R Cool; Pascal Gagneux; Frank Z Stanczyk; Lynda K McGinnis; Steven R Lindheim Journal: F S Rep Date: 2021-02-08
Authors: Alexander Frenzel; Hans Binder; Nadja Walter; Kerstin Wirkner; Markus Loeffler; Henry Loeffler-Wirth Journal: NPJ Aging Mech Dis Date: 2020-03-24