Auxology of small samples: A method to describe child growth when restrictions prevent surveys.

BACKGROUND: Child growth in populations is commonly characterised by cross-sectional surveys. These require data collection from large samples of individuals across age ranges spanning 1-20 years. Such surveys are expensive and impossible in restrictive situations, such as, e.g. the COVID pandemic or limited size of isolated communities. A method allowing description of child growth based on small samples is needed.
METHODS: Small samples of data (N~50) for boys and girls 6-20 years old from different socio-economic situations in Africa and Europe were randomly extracted from surveys of thousands of children. Data included arm circumference, hip width, grip strength, height and weight. Polynomial regressions of these measurements on age were explored.
FINDINGS: Polynomial curves based on small samples correlated well (r = 0.97 to 1.00) with results of surveys of thousands of children from same communities and correctly reflected sexual dimorphism and socio-economic differences.
CONCLUSIONS: Fitting of curvilinear regressions to small data samples allows expeditious assessment of child growth in a number of characteristics when situations change rapidly, resources are limited and access to children is restricted.

Introduction

Traditionally, studies of child/adolescent growth and development use sizeable cross-sectional samples that can be analyzed by determining parameters of morphological/functional traits distributions in separate age groups, or numerous sets of longitudinal observations. There are, however, situations where children of some specific, rare groups, are not very numerous or where studies of larger samples encounter legal and logistic problems, e.g. limited contact under COVID restrictions. In such situations, dividing small samples of observations into age classes, usually of one year duration, is not efficient from the point of view of statistical analyses because sample sizes for one-year parameter estimates become small. The process of growth is a continuous one and imposition of arbitrary age groupings is not the optimal analytical approach. Since various developmental processes determining size vary their rates with age, the growth is a curvilinear function of time. Thus, a continuous curve can be fitted to a scatter of size measurements by age. The advantage of such an approach is that the sample size for parameters of the curve equals the total number of individuals measured in a large age range, eg. 6–18 years.

Since 2020 the global pandemic of COVID-19 requires limited contact of individuals in order not to spread infection and thus measuring healthy children in large quantities for purposes of assessing how certain environmental conditions influence their growth is counter indicated. However, some information on how growth is affected by the pandemic may be useful. There are small, sometimes isolated, communities where total numbers of children are counted in scores. In those situations, approaches obtaining growth descriptions from small samples of data are useful. A method often used is the non-parametric curve fitting such as locally weighted scatterplot smoothing (LOWESS or LOESS) that can be applied when samples are numerous enough [1,2]. The main disadvantage of the LOESS method is that curves it produces can only be compared visually, but not analytically [1].

In the assessment of longitudinal growth of various morphological characters a number of methods are used [3-7]. Their consideration indicates that polynomials provide good descriptions of the growth of various organisms, including human children [6], frogs [8] and plants [9]. Third degree polynomials are considered “traditional” models in statistical considerations of complex models of individual longitudinal growth [10]. Thus, a growth model using a polynomial seems to be compatible with biological nature of developmental phenomena.

One of the most widely used models of growth applicable to the entire period of progressive postnatal ontogeny–polynomial model 1 of Preece-Baines [11] uses a defined number of parameters (at least 5), values of which must be estimated irrespective of the shape of an individual’s growth curve. The model does not always fit data from small populations that are either incomplete or show no clear adolescent growth spurt. Although this model does not assume a priori the existence of the adolescent growth spurt [12,13], its authors could fit it sufficiently well to only 57% of boys’ and 74% of British girls selected from the Harpenden Growth Study longitudinal records. Brown and Townsend [14] when applying model 1 of Preece and Baines to longitudinal data from the Yuendumu community in Australia failed to fit it to 37% of girls and 29% boys. In general, parametric models are incapable of analyzing growth of all individuals since they force certain theoretical assumptions into empirical analyses. There are also no models in the literature relating to growth of morphological or functional characteristics other than height and weight.

We propose here a non-parametric method that allows to describe growth of a variety of measurable characteristics using continuous growth curves fitted to small samples of data. We test it here using samples originating from South African children and compare with some results obtained in the same way for Polish children.

Materials and methods

The cross-sectional data were derived from the dataset collected in 1986–1995 in South Africa in a community traditionally called “Cape Coloured” though now preferring other names such as “mixed”. Details of data collection, together with ethics, are described in Henneberg and Louw [15] while their specific uses in [16-19]. All data from this community were collected following approval by the Human Research Ethics Committees of the University of Cape Town and the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg and the Regional Office of the Department of Health Services and Welfare of the House of Representatives of the Government of the Republic of South Africa. Through the collaboration of the principals of a number of schools administered by this Regional Office, written consent was obtained from parents (guardians) of each individual child studied. Schools distributed information sheets and consent forms in the local language (Afrikaans) to parents of each child in their care. At a day of data collection each child to be assessed presented signed by its parents (guardians) consent form and was asked to participate. Only children presenting forms signed by their parents and agreeing to this request were tested. All members of the team collecting data (academics and students) spoke the local language and clearly understood what children said.

From this dataset comprising nearly 4,000 individuals we have selected, using the random number generator, data for 50 individuals of each following group: high socio-economic status (SES) urban boys, high SES girls, low SES rural boys and low SES girls. In each case the age range was 6–20 years. Chronological (calendar) age of each individual was computed precisely as a difference in days between the date of examination and the date of birth converted to years and their decimal fractions. These data are available as S1 Dataset.

Data for each of these groups were considered as if they were a set of observations collected in a situation when only 50 children could be measured in a whole studied community. Results of fitting growth curves to these samples were then compared to cross-sectional results of the whole data set analysis [15]. For some comparisons, selected 50 observations of Polish children measured in the city of Łódź (a city of 700 000 inhabitants, located in central Poland) in 2002–2004 were used. The study was part of a research program monitoring the development of pre-school and school children [20,21]. These children were measured following the agreements with local administration of the school system (Kuratorium Oświaty), school principals, parents and children. Each child was asked for a verbal consent to the examination by a member of the anthropometric team and those who refused were not measured. All members of the team spoke local language (Polish). The entire procedure has been approved by the Committee for Bioethics of Research of the University of Łódź (KBBN-UŁ).

All anthropometric examinations conducted in South Africa were carried out by a team trained and supervised by M. Henneberg who was present throughout the time of all examinations. All anthropometric measurements collected in Poland were conducted by qualified members of the staff of the Department of Anthropology, Univeristy of Łódź according to the procedures introduced by Martin and Saller [22]. Method of taking measurements has been described in detail in Henneberg and Louw [15] p.75. Weight was measured with a portable spring scale (‘‘Hanson”) in the majority of cases and a beam balance scale less frequently. Both scales were usually present at the place of examination and the spring scale was periodically calibrated against the beam balance. Such an arrangement made weight taking faster. All participants were examined without their shoes and wearing only light clothing. A standard GPM anthropometer was used to measure the distance from the floor to the vertex to determine body height. A spreading caliper was used to measure hip width (ic-ic, biiliocristal diameter). Arm circumference was measured with an elastic tape. All measurements were taken to the nearest millimeter and recorded and processed that way in accordance with the requirements of the SI system of measures. Grip strength was measured with a hand spring dynamometer and converted to the specific grip strength by combining it with arm circumference as described in Henneberg et al. [23]. It was expressed in Newtons per square centimeter.

Statistical analysis

Scatterplot of data on the size of a particular anthropometric character against decimal age in each sample of 50 individuals was fitted with the third degree polynomial. This simple approach is entirely objective, assumption free, though it may be lacking sophistication concerning particularities of human growth. This lack, however, avoids the circular reasoning inherent in using prior knowledge of human growth established on samples of individuals limited with respect to geographic and socio-economic origin. It is also free from LOESS assumptions of linear or quadratic local growth in sizeable (0.25–0.50) portions of data, and of their arbitrary weighting. It allows measurement of goodness of fit by coefficient of determination that shows the fraction of the total variance explained by the polynomial. Polynomial regression equations obtained were then used to calculate their first derivatives by age, that is velocities of growth. These are continuous rather than pseudovelocities, that are differences between estimated adjacent age group average values, which in jagged growth curves may vary inconsistently.

Curve fitting was executed in Microsoft Excel 2020. Values predicted by polynomial regression equations for each year of age were compared with empirical averages for each year of age grouping in the entire cross-sectional data set using the procedure commonly applied for calculation of technical errors of measurement (TEM). In this procedure differences for each age are squared and their sum for all ages divided by twice the number of comparisons. Square root of this result indicates goodness of fit:

TEM = (Σ[xp−xt]2)/2N)0.5. Also, a correlation coefficient between polynomial-predicted and whole sample averages for each year was calculated.

Results

For all studied characters of South African children–body height, weight, arm circumference, hip width and specific grip strength—polynomial curves fitted to randomly selected 50 individuals aged 6 to 18 years approximated empirical growth curves derived from the cross sectional studies of about 1000 individuals each (Figs 1 and 2).

Fig 1

Fitting of polynomial curves to characteristics of samples of 50 South African boys and girls

Upper row—body heights of urban males and rural females, second row—body masses of rural males and urban females, third row—arm circumferences of urban males and rural females, the last row—hip widths of rural males and urban females. Fitted curves are compared with curves based on one year age averages from large (N~1000) cross-sectional samples wherefrom the 50 individuals were randomly selected.

Fig 2

Various applications of polynomial curves fitted to samples of 50 randomly selected children.

Upper row–a functional character, specific grip strength of the right hand of urban (left) and rural (right) South African males. Second and third rows–curves fitted to body height, hip width and specific grip strength of Polish children (solid lines) compared to curves for urban (long dashes) and rural (short dashes) South African children. The bottom row—velocities of height calculated as first degree derivatives of third degree polynomials fitted to 50 randomly selected South African females and males. In specific grip strength comparison note that, due to standardization on muscle cross-section (= size) there is no clear difference between urban and rural samples nor African and Polish males, as expected.

Agreement, as measured by correlation coefficients was very close (0.95–1.00) and differences amounted to a few percentage points of each variable’s size (Table 1).

Table 1

Results of comparisons between third degree polynomial curves fitted to 50 randomly selected children characteristics and year-of-growth averages for N~1000 samples from which these 50 children were selected.

Characteristic	MALES				FEMALES
	rural		urban		rural		urban
	R	TEM	R	TEM	R	TEM	R	TEM
Body height (mm)	0.99	15.3	1.00	24.5	0.99	21.5	0.99	23.3
Body mass (Kg)	0.99	1.6	0.98	2.1	0.99	1.1	0.99	2.2
Arm circumf. (mm)	0.97	10.0	0.97	6.4	0.98	3.5	0.97	8.4
Biiliocristal (mm)	1.00	2.3	0.99	3.6	0.98	5.5	0.99	7.3
Grip strength(N/cm2)	0.95	1.0	0.98	0.3	0.99	0.9	0.99	0.9

R–correlation between polynomial estimates of year-of-growth averages and actual year-of-growth averages, TEM–technical error of measurement calculated as a square root of the sum of squared annual differences divided by twice the number of annual groups (6–18 years = 13 groups).

Polynomial curves for boys and girls and for contrasting socio-economic conditions (SES), correctly illustrated growth differences as expected from the general knowledge of growth: curves for boys indicated greater values than those for girls and low SES curves lied below those for high SES children (Fig 2). Polish children’s values were greater than those of South African children as expected from the knowledge of both heritable size differences and SES difference (Fig 2). Coefficients of determination R2 of polynomial regressions can be used to assess individual variability of a given trait during growth (1- R2). As can be expected, body height has less individual variability (R2 ~ 0.7–0.8) than body mass or arm circumference (R2~0.6–0.4), (Table 2).

Table 2

Coefficients of the third degree polynomial curves fitted to characteristics of randomly selected samples of 50 children aged 6–18 years compared between sexes, socioeconomic status and African and Polish samples.

	Males					Females
Characteristic	a	b	c	d	R2	a	b	c	d	R2
Body height, rural	-0.383	13.3	-98.3	1314.8	0.77	-0.900	27.8	-222.1	1628.9	0.75
Body height, urban	-0.243	7.7	-32.2	1152.8	0.80	-0.855	28.1	-246.8	1877.6	0.68
Body height, Polish	-0.501	16.4	-112.1	1412.9	0.89	-0.032	-2.9	125.3	503.9	0.85
Body mass, rural	-0.0032	0.15	0.56	8.5	0.57	-0.015	0.647	-4.42	23.8	0.59
Body mass, urban	-0.0609	2.31	-24.66	105.7	0.64	-0.015	0.506	-1.97	18.1	0.65
Body mass, Polish	-0.0064	0.21	2.06	3.8	0.73	0.009	-0.603	13.60	-46.8	0.72
Arm circ. rural	0.072	-2.51	31.8	39.4	0.37	0.046	-1.201	15.40	101.1	0.42
Arm circ. urban	-0.111	4.42	-48.8	346.9	0.44	0.118	-4.169	52.96	-19.4	0.33
Arm circ. Polish	0.147	-5.71	77.3	121.9	0.50	0.114	-5.007	73.15	-126.5	0.36
Hip width, rural	-0.024	1.013	-7.11	183.46	0.65	0.041	-1.704	29.51	29.2	0.56
Hip width, urban	-0.048	1.873	-15.86	221.04	0.69	-0.064	2.102	-12.79	195.5	0.68
Hip width, Polish	-0.005	-0.204	16.86	90.36	0.81	0.011	-1.423	38.01	-13.0	0.77
Specific grip, rural	-0.007	0.644	-0.378	0.11	0.52	0.009	-0.347	4.972	18.8	0.34
Specific grip, urban	0.004	-0.183	2.999	-9.80	0.47	-0.009	0.284	-2.297	8.9	0.52
Specific grip Polish	-0.009	0.342	-3.922	19.89	0.51	0.002	-0.061	0.875	2.0	0.07

Body mass in kg, specific grip strength in N/cm2, others in mm. The equation characterising each curve is: y = ax3+ bx2+cx+d, where x- age in years.

First derivatives of polynomial distance curves can be considered as measures of growth velocities. Although they display generally expected increase in velocity towards puberty and then its decline, they, being parabolas, are not precise enough to characterize details of growth (Fig 2).

Discussion

The curves fitted to small samples studied here show a potential to correctly characterise growth. They fit sufficiently well to cross-sectional empirical curves based on large samples and reflect expected differences between sexes, socioeconomic groups and populations. However, as unstructured models, these curves may be unstable at the extremities and their parameters do not have biological interpretations [7]. Low-order (2–3) polynomials were used to describe the early part of postnatal growth [24]. Chirwa et al. [25], comparing the fitness of four structural and two non-structural growth models using the longitudinal child growth data from Soweto-Johannesburg in South Africa, concluded that the 3rd order polynomial is as good as the structural Berkey-Reed 1st order model for modelling weight during infancy and childhood (up to 10 years).

Recent changes in social attitudes in developed countries together with increased considerations of research ethics make it difficult to recruit large samples of healthy children for growth studies, while local communities where child growth may be seriously compromised are difficult to approach due to conflicts or access restrictions. COVID-19 pandemic resticts contacts with healthy subjects. This situation may continue for a considerable time during which assessments of child growth should be done. Therefore ability to assess growth on small samples becomes useful. Growth of body height and weight of small numbers of children can be assesed by comparing individuals to WHO growth charts or similar instruments, but growth and development of other characteristics such as transverse body dimensions, circumferences or functional traits finds no comparable international standards. Fitting growth curves remains the only way to assess their growth in small samples. Assessing functional abilities of children in poor communities is more important than studying their physical size [23,26].

In the past anthropometric methods were used, incorrectly, to define “ethnic” or “racial” differences between populations. Since human anthropometric variation is continuous and reflects adaptive responses of human bodies to their immediate living conditions in addition to possible heritable differences, the results of this paper should not be used for any attempts to define taxonomic differences among human populations.

Small sample size affects precision of results of any statistical analysis, thus the method proposed here should be used with caution, however, it is sufficient to indicate directions of differences.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

Transfer Alert

This paper was transferred from another journal. As a result, its full editorial history (including decision letters, peer reviews and author responses) may not be present.

22 Apr 2022

11 May 2022

Response submitted as a file with responses in red font. Here we copy this file, but it will not diferentiate our responses in a colour different from the requests. Please read the submitted file rather than the text below for ease of distinguishing our replies.

_____________________________________

Replies to the Editor and reviewers

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

We have followed style requirements

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

We have specified types of consent for both South African and Polish children in the Methods section giving names of ethics committees and describing how individual consent, and consent of parents/guardians was obtained. See lines 90-104 and 117-122 of the revised manuscript.

3. Our policy for research in this area aims to improve transparency in the reporting of research performed outside of researchers’ own country or community. The policy applies to researchers who have travelled to a different country to conduct research, research with Indigenous populations or their lands, and research on cultural artefacts. The questionnaire can also be requested at the journal’s discretion for any other submissions, even if these conditions are not met. Please find more information on the policy and a link to download a blank copy of the questionnaire here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/best-practices-in-research-reporting. Please upload a completed version of your questionnaire as Supporting Information when you resubmit your manuscript.

Both in South Africa and in Poland research was conducted in researchers’ own countries in local communities with whom researchers had personal ongoing contacts. Filled out Questionnaire is submitted.

4. We noted in your submission details that a portion of your manuscript may have been presented or published elsewhere.

(PLOS Medicine)

Please clarify whether this [conference proceeding or publication] was peer-reviewed and formally published. If this work was previously peer-reviewed and published, in the cover letter please provide the reason that this work does not constitute dual publication and should be included in the current manuscript.

NO, no portion of our manuscript was published elsewhere as far as we can remember. internet searches failed to discover any such publication. Checked PLOS Medicine – negative result. Our paper is based on data used for other studies that had aims and methods different from the current one. For this reason, materials and some characteristics of studied children have been described in a number of papers, cited in the references to the current paper. None of these papers, however, uses the method, the approach and the results produced for the current paper. No refereed conference proceeding or publication has a content similar to the current paper.

A paper with a similar title, but different contents “Auxology of small samples: new approach applied to children and adolescents in three Aboriginal communities in Australia” has been submitted to PLOS One by Dr Żądzińska in 2015 (PONE-D-15-13511) and rejected. This paper used data sets from completely different communities (Aboriginal Australians, not African and Polish) and attempted to apply a method similar to the one in the current paper, but not identical, to a different type of data (longitudinal, not cross-sectional) with the aim of characterising growth velocities, not simply the distance growth lines, as the current paper does. Introduction to this rejected paper had some sentences similar, but not identical, to those used in the current paper. Six years after the mentioned rejection, we have done a completely new work on different data sets with altered methods, and aims and results different from the rejected paper.

5. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

We now are providing a Supplementary file with all data used for the current paper, no indication that data will be available upon request is made.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. No need for this indication. Data are now provided in the Supplement

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

The anonymised data set has been uploaded as the Supplementary Information

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

6. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

Done, see lines 90-105 and 118-123 of the revised manuscript

7. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Done

8. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Refences checked

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No, now the file S1 dataset containing all data used is submitted

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

5. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: The study proposes a unique method which is parsimonious and efficient in relation to previous methods such as parametric methods. Essentially, the non-parametric method developed describes growth of South African and Polish children using various morphometric elements.

The language of the paper is satisfactory and accessible, with the exception of a few grammatical errors. The method is clearly and logical described.

The results produced are based on the sample size are significant. Also, the study utilises continuous growth curves to a small sample size. Groups of 50 children were randomly selected from a very large cohort. The number of children is satisfactory in my opinion as it does not detract from the study’s hypothesis. The results obtained incorporate the application of polynomial curves in order to show auxological features of the groups.

The method is ideal as it considerably cuts field time and measuring large amounts of individuals which can be problematic due to limited fieldwork time, conflict/war, or bureaucratic issues. The study addresses an old but important issue of the correlation between sample size and reliable information. Does more mean better? Or is less a better approach in extrapolating tenable results? The study provides a testable hypothesis which deserves further attention in auxological studies.

Reviewer #2: This is a very good manuscript.

Only 2 points need to be addressed. They are:

1) The limitation of this study must be mentioned.

Limitations were spelt out in lines 214-216 please note that transmission of the manuscript Word file seems to shift line numbers. For this reason we have highlighted by a “comment” appropriate parts of the text

2) The utility of this paper must be highlighted.

The utility has been highlighted in lines 221-226 and 228-232 please note that transmission of the manuscript Word file seems to shift line numbers. For this reason we have highlighted by a “comment” appropriate parts of the text

Since we have already mentioned the limitations and the utility of our study in the text as indicated above, we can only interpret comments of the reviewer as requiring us to put those lines under separate section subtitles. Such practice, in a short paper, would unnecessarily disrupt the flow of our brief “Discussion” that is almost entirely devoted to limitations and utility of our method.

Minor revisions are required. Done, described above

The request of the Academic Editor in consultation with the journal editors, has been satisfied by adding the following text at lines 252-256:

“In the past anthropometric methods were used, incorrectly, to define “ethnic” or “racial” differences between populations. Since human anthropometric variation is continuous and reflects adaptive responses of human bodies to their immediate living conditions in addition to possible heritable differences, the results of this paper should not be used for any attempts to define taxonomic differences among human populations.“

The authors are firmly opposed to distinguishing biological subdivisions of our species. Human variation is predominantly individual and differences among populations do not justify separating them as categories or breeds, races or subspecies. MH lived in South Africa through the end of apartheid and participated in the first free elections there.

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Kaushik Bose

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Submitted filename: renamed_32d1c.docx

Click here for additional data file.

23 May 2022

Auxology of small samples: a method to describe child growth when restrictions prevent surveys

PONE-D-22-04086R1

Dear Dr. Henneberg,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Francesco Maria Galassi, MD MRSB MCSFS FRSPH

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

30 May 2022

PONE-D-22-04086R1

Auxology of small samples: a method to describe child growth when restrictions prevent surveys

Dear Dr. Henneberg:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Professor Francesco Maria Galassi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE