Sani M Roy1, David A Fields2, Jonathan A Mitchell3, Colin P Hawkes4, Andrea Kelly4, Gary D Wu3, Patricia A DeRusso3, Michal A Elovitz5, Eileen Ford6, Danielle Drigo6, Babette S Zemel3, Shana E McCormack4. 1. Division of Endocrinology and Diabetes, Cook Children's Medical Center, Fort Worth, TX; Division of Endocrinology and Diabetes, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA. Electronic address: sani.m.roy@gmail.com. 2. Division of Endocrinology and Diabetes, Oklahoma University Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK. 3. Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA; Department of Pediatrics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. 4. Division of Endocrinology and Diabetes, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA; Department of Pediatrics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. 5. Maternal and Child Health Research Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. 6. Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess whether body mass index (BMI) provides a better assessment of measured adiposity at age 1 month compared with weight-for-length (WFL). STUDY DESIGN: Participants were healthy term-born infants in the Infant Growth and Microbiome (n = 146) and the Baby Peas (n = 147) studies. Length, weight, and body composition by air displacement plethysmography were measured at 1 month. World Health Organization-based WFL and BMI z-scores were calculated. Within-cohort z-scores of percent fat-Z, fat mass-Z, fat mass/length2-Z, fat mass/length3-Z, fat-free mass-Z, and fat-free mass/length2-Z were calculated. Correlation and multiple linear regression (adjusted for birth weight) analyses tested the associations between body composition outcomes and BMI-Z vs WFL-Z. Quantile regression was used to test the stability of these associations across the distribution of body compositions. RESULTS: The sample was 52% female and 56% African American. Accounting for birth weight, both BMI-Z and WFL-Z were strongly associated with fat mass-Z (coefficients 0.56 and 0.35, respectively), FM/L2-Z (0.73 and 0.51), and FM/L3-Z (0.79 and 0.58), with stronger associations for BMI-Z compared with WFL-Z (P < .05). Even after accounting statistically for birth weight, BMI-Z was persistently more strongly associated than WFL-Z with body composition outcomes across the distribution of body composition outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate in 2 distinct cohorts that BMI is a better indicator of adiposity in early infancy compared with WFL. Our findings support the preferred use of BMI for growth and nutritional status assessment in infancy.
OBJECTIVE: To assess whether body mass index (BMI) provides a better assessment of measured adiposity at age 1 month compared with weight-for-length (WFL). STUDY DESIGN:Participants were healthy term-born infants in the Infant Growth and Microbiome (n = 146) and the Baby Peas (n = 147) studies. Length, weight, and body composition by air displacement plethysmography were measured at 1 month. World Health Organization-based WFL and BMI z-scores were calculated. Within-cohort z-scores of percent fat-Z, fat mass-Z, fat mass/length2-Z, fat mass/length3-Z, fat-free mass-Z, and fat-free mass/length2-Z were calculated. Correlation and multiple linear regression (adjusted for birth weight) analyses tested the associations between body composition outcomes and BMI-Z vs WFL-Z. Quantile regression was used to test the stability of these associations across the distribution of body compositions. RESULTS: The sample was 52% female and 56% African American. Accounting for birth weight, both BMI-Z and WFL-Z were strongly associated with fat mass-Z (coefficients 0.56 and 0.35, respectively), FM/L2-Z (0.73 and 0.51), and FM/L3-Z (0.79 and 0.58), with stronger associations for BMI-Z compared with WFL-Z (P < .05). Even after accounting statistically for birth weight, BMI-Z was persistently more strongly associated than WFL-Z with body composition outcomes across the distribution of body composition outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate in 2 distinct cohorts that BMI is a better indicator of adiposity in early infancy compared with WFL. Our findings support the preferred use of BMI for growth and nutritional status assessment in infancy.
Authors: Tiffany L Blake-Lamb; Lindsey M Locks; Meghan E Perkins; Jennifer A Woo Baidal; Erika R Cheng; Elsie M Taveras Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2016-02-22 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Robert E Black; Cesar G Victora; Susan P Walker; Zulfiqar A Bhutta; Parul Christian; Mercedes de Onis; Majid Ezzati; Sally Grantham-McGregor; Joanne Katz; Reynaldo Martorell; Ricardo Uauy Journal: Lancet Date: 2013-06-06 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: José Villar; Leila Cheikh Ismail; Cesar G Victora; Eric O Ohuma; Enrico Bertino; Doug G Altman; Ann Lambert; Aris T Papageorghiou; Maria Carvalho; Yasmin A Jaffer; Michael G Gravett; Manorama Purwar; Ihunnaya O Frederick; Alison J Noble; Ruyan Pang; Fernando C Barros; Cameron Chumlea; Zulfiqar A Bhutta; Stephen H Kennedy Journal: Lancet Date: 2014-09-06 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Hajar Mazahery; Pamela R von Hurst; Christopher J D McKinlay; Barbara E Cormack; Cathryn A Conlon Journal: Matern Health Neonatol Perinatol Date: 2018-06-20
Authors: Efrah I Yousuf; Niels Rochow; Jenifer Li; Julia Simioni; Elizabeth Gunn; Eileen K Hutton; Katherine M Morrison Journal: Pediatr Res Date: 2022-03-16 Impact factor: 3.953
Authors: Callie L Brown; Asheley C Skinner; Michael J Steiner; Tracy Truong; Cynthia L Green; Charles T Wood Journal: Acad Pediatr Date: 2022-03-24 Impact factor: 2.993
Authors: Mary Ellen Vajravelu; Jung-Jin Lee; Lauren Mitteer; Babette S Zemel; Kyle Bittinger; Diva D De León Journal: Pancreas Date: 2021-01-01 Impact factor: 3.243
Authors: Izaskun García-Mantrana; Marta Selma-Royo; Sonia González; Anna Parra-Llorca; Cecilia Martínez-Costa; María Carmen Collado Journal: Gut Microbes Date: 2020-03-13
Authors: Courtney A South; Charles D G Keown-Stoneman; Catherine S Birken; Vasanti S Malik; Stanley H Zlotkin; Jonathon L Maguire Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2022-07-01
Authors: Kylie E Hunter; Brittany J Johnson; Lisa Askie; Rebecca K Golley; Louise A Baur; Ian C Marschner; Rachael W Taylor; Luke Wolfenden; Charles T Wood; Seema Mihrshahi; Alison J Hayes; Chris Rissel; Kristy P Robledo; Denise A O'Connor; David Espinoza; Lukas P Staub; Paul Chadwick; Sarah Taki; Angie Barba; Sol Libesman; Mason Aberoumand; Wendy A Smith; Michelle Sue-See; Kylie D Hesketh; Jessica L Thomson; Maria Bryant; Ian M Paul; Vera Verbestel; Cathleen Odar Stough; Li Ming Wen; Junilla K Larsen; Sharleen L O'Reilly; Heather M Wasser; Jennifer S Savage; Ken K Ong; Sarah-Jeanne Salvy; Mary Jo Messito; Rachel S Gross; Levie T Karssen; Finn E Rasmussen; Karen Campbell; Ana Maria Linares; Nina Cecilie Øverby; Cristina Palacios; Kaumudi J Joshipura; Carolina González Acero; Rajalakshmi Lakshman; Amanda L Thompson; Claudio Maffeis; Emily Oken; Ata Ghaderi; Maribel Campos Rivera; Ana B Pérez-Expósito; Jinan C Banna; Kayla de la Haye; Michael Goran; Margrethe Røed; Stephanie Anzman-Frasca; Barry J Taylor; Anna Lene Seidler Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-01-20 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Gene Yong-Kwang Ong; Aloysius Jian Feng Ang; Zhao Jin Chen; Yiong Huak Chan; Phua Hwee Tang; Elisabeth Sue Sheun Fong; Jun Yuan Tan; AmirZeb S O Aurangzeb; Jen Heng Pek; Ian Maconochie; Kee Chong Ng; Vinay Nadkarni Journal: Resusc Plus Date: 2022-01-20