Modeling physiological and anthropometric variables known to vary with body size and other confounding variables
MetadataShow full item record
AbstractThis review explores the most appropriate methods of identifying population differences in physiological and anthropometric variables known to differ with body size and other confounding variables. We shall provide an overview of such problems from a historical point of view. We shall then give some guidelines as to the choice of body-size covariates as well as other confounding variables, and show how these might be incorporated into the model, depending on the physiological dependent variable and the nature of the population being studied. We shall also recommend appropriate goodness-of-fit statistics that will enable researchers to confirm the most appropriate choice of model, including, for example, how to compare proportional allometric models with the equivalent linear or additive polynomial models. We shall also discuss alternative body-size scaling variables (height, fat-free mass, body surface area, and projected area of skeletal bone), and whether empirical vs. theoretical scaling methodologies should be reported. We shall offer some cautionary advice (limitations) when interpreting the parameters obtained when fitting proportional power function or allometric models, due to the fact that human physiques are not geometrically similar to each other. In conclusion, a variety of different models will be identified to describe physiological and anthropometric variables known to vary with body size and other confounding variables. These include simple ratio standards (e.g., per body mass ratios), linear and additive polynomial models, and proportional allometric or power function models. Proportional allometric models are shown to be superior to either simple ratio standards or linear and additive polynomial models for a variety of different reasons. These include: 1) providing biologically interpretable models that yield sensible estimates within and beyond the range of data; and 2) providing a superior fit based on the Akaike information criterion (AIC), Bayes information criterion (BIC), or maximum log-likelihood criteria (resulting in a smaller error variance). As such, these models will also: 3) naturally lead to a more powerful analysis-of-covariance test of significance, which will 4) subsequently lead to more correct conclusions when investigating population (epidemiological) or experimental differences in physiological and anthropometric variables known to vary with body size.
CitationAmerican Journal of Physical Anthropology, 41: 141-153
JournalAmerican Journal of Physical Anthropology
- Adjusting bone mass for differences in projected bone area and other confounding variables: an allometric perspective.
- Authors: Nevill AM, Holder RL, Maffulli N, Cheng JC, Leung SS, Lee WT, Lau JT
- Issue date: 2002 Apr
- Scaling submaximal exercise cardiac output and stroke volume: the HERITAGE Family Study.
- Authors: Turley KR, Stanforth PR, Rankinen T, Bouchard C, Leon AS, Rao DC, Skinner JS, Wilmore JH, Spears FM
- Issue date: 2006 Dec
- Scaling cardiac structural data by body dimensions: a review of theory, practice, and problems.
- Authors: Batterham AM, George KP, Whyte G, Sharma S, McKenna W
- Issue date: 1999 Nov
- Extended follow-up and spatial analysis of the American Cancer Society study linking particulate air pollution and mortality.
- Authors: Krewski D, Jerrett M, Burnett RT, Ma R, Hughes E, Shi Y, Turner MC, Pope CA 3rd, Thurston G, Calle EE, Thun MJ, Beckerman B, DeLuca P, Finkelstein N, Ito K, Moore DK, Newbold KB, Ramsay T, Ross Z, Shin H, Tempalski B
- Issue date: 2009 May
- Non linear anthropometric predictors in swimming.
- Authors: Sekulić D, Zenić N, Zubcević NG
- Issue date: 2007 Sep