kwic
who
who
right
off
ON
359
1
100
500
strict
ELIZA cgi-bash version rev. 1.91
- Medical English LInking keywords finder for the PubMed Zipped Archive (ELIZA) -
return
kwic search for who out of >500 occurrences
271863 occurrences (No.95 in the rank) during 5 years in the PubMed. [cache]
--- ABSTRACT ---
--- ABSTRACT END ---
[frequency of next (right) word to who]
271863 occurrences (No.95 in the rank) during 5 years in the PubMed. [cache]
| 359) Although the WHO equation presented the best option within our sample, all equations performed poorly at the individual level. |
| PMID:35096230 DOI:10.70252/XAFX1170 |
| 2021 International journal of exercise science |
| * Predictive Accuracy of the Nelson Equation via BodPod Compared to Commonly Used Equations to Estimate Resting Metabolic Rate in Adults. |
| - Indirect calorimetry (IC) is considered the gold standard for assessing resting metabolic rate (RMR). However, many people do not have access to IC devices and use prediction equations for RMR estimation. Equations using fat free mass (FFM) as a predictor have been developed to estimate RMR, as a strong relationship exists between FFM and RMR. One such equation is the Nelson equation which is used by the BodPod (BP). Yet, there is limited evidence whether the Nelson equation is superior to other common equations to predict RMR. To examine the agreement between predicted RMR from common RMR equations and the BP, and RMR measured via IC. Data from 48 healthy volunteers who completed both the BP and IC were collected. Agreement between RMR measured by BP, common regression equations, and indirect caloriometry was evaluated using repeated measures ANOVA, Bland-Altman analysis and root mean square error (RMSE). Predicted RMR values from common equations and BP were significantly different from IC with the exception of the World Health Organization (WHO) equation. Large limits of agreement and RMSE values demonstrate a large amount of error at the individual level. Despite the use of FFM, the Nelson equation does not appear to be superior to other common RMR equations. Although the WHO equation presented the best option within our sample, all equations performed poorly at the individual level. Clinicians should be aware that prediction equations may significantly under- or overestimate RMR compared to IC and when an accurate value of RMR is required, IC is recommended. |
[
right
kwic]
(1)46  were |
(14)7 use |
(27)3 feel |
(40)2 engage |
| (2)44 are |
(15)6 was |
(28)3 guideline |
(41)2 equation |
| (3)36 have |
(16)5 live |
(29)3 guidelines |
(42)2 failed |
| (4)36 met |
(17)5 participated |
(30)3 identify |
(43)2 felt |
| (5)24 had |
(18)5 receive |
(31)3 initially |
(44)2 has |
| (6)12 underwent |
(19)5 reported |
(32)3 inject |
(45)2 is |
| (7)11 completed |
(20)4 did |
(33)3 lived |
(46)2 misuse |
| (8)11 took |
(21)4 experience |
(34)3 used |
(47)2 need |
| (9)10 may |
(22)4 experienced |
(35)2 achieved |
(48)2 recently |
| (10)9 presented |
(23)4 present |
(36)2 also |
(49)2 recommends |
| (11)9 received |
(24)4 work |
(37)2 can |
(50)2 show |
| (12)7 developed |
(25)3 desire |
(38)2 consume |
(51)2 suffer |
| (13)7 do |
(26)3 did/not |
(39)2 died |
(52)2 treat |
add keyword
--- WordNet output for who ---