5 ms·
The unit of the BMI should be kg/m^2 Will read the rest now but I'm not sure what to think of a paper with such an error in the first line of the abstract.
by dmichulke 9y ago
The unit of the BMI should be kg/m^2
Will read the rest now but I'm not sure what to think of a paper with such an error in the first line of the abstract.
- yangyun 9y agoJoke alert
- geezerjay 9y agoI don't see that as an error. Although there's a popular simplified model that expresses an ideal weight as a function of kg/m^2, the weight/height ratio is indeed expressed as kg/m. Furthermore, if that detail was relevant I'm sure that the paper wouldn't have passed through a peer review process.
- sackintor 9y agoIf the authors were using kg/m^-1 instead of kg/m^-2 with the given information (96.8 kg; BMI, 30.2 kg m−1; height not provided), the patient would need to be over 3m (nearly 10 ft) tall. This seems unlikely. If it were true, it would probably make for an even more interesting case report. Peer review for less well known pay-to-publish ($1800) journals like this one is by no means a guarantee of quality: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full http://science.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- KMag 9y ago> Although there's a popular simplified model that expresses an ideal weight as a function of kg/m^2, the weight/height ratio is indeed expressed as kg/m. That's a non-sequitur argument: the OP wasn't talking about height/mass ratio. BMI is clearly defined and it is not weight/height ratio.[0] You might as well have said "I think the units for BMI are indeed kg/m, because Abraham Lincoln was born in 1809". [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_mass_index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_mass_index