Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2014;65(2-3):167-74.
doi: 10.1159/000365894. Epub 2014 Sep 26.

Comparative study of four growth models applied to weight and height growth data in a cohort of US children from birth to 9 years

Nolwenn Regnault  1 , Matthew W Gillman, Ken Kleinman, Sheryl Rifas-Shiman, Jérémie Botton
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Comparative study of four growth models applied to weight and height growth data in a cohort of US children from birth to 9 years

Nolwenn Regnault et al. Ann Nutr Metab. 2014.

Abstract

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Disclosure Statement

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Residuals of the four candidate models for weight growth plotted against age (birth to 109 months): data from 1,723 boys and girls from Project Viva
Figure 2
Figure 2
Residuals of the four candidate models for length growth plotted against age (birth to 109 months): data from 1,749 boys and girls from Project Viva
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Barker DJ, Osmond C, Golding J, Kuh D, Wadsworth ME. Growth in utero, blood pressure in childhood and adult life, and mortality from cardiovascular disease. BMJ. 1989;298:564–567. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Barker DJP. The developmental origins of adult disease. J Am Coll Nutr. 2004;23:588S–595S. - PubMed
    1. Eriksson JG. Early growth and coronary heart disease and type 2 diabetes: findings from the Helsinki Birth Cohort Study (HBCS) Am J Clin Nutr. 2011;94(6 suppl):1799S–1802S. - PubMed
    1. Wen X, Kleinman K, Gillman MW, Rifas-Shiman SL, Taveras EM. Childhood body mass index trajectories: modeling, characterizing, pairwise correlations and socio-demographic predictors of trajectory characteristics. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12:38. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Tilling K, Davies NM, Nicoli E, Ben-Shlomo Y, Kramer MS, Patel R, Oken E, Martin RM. Associations of growth trajectories in infancy and early childhood with later childhood outcomes. Am J Clin Nutr. 2011;94(6 suppl):1808S–1813S. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types