Back

Estimating mean growth trajectories when measurements are sparse and age is uncertain

Bunce, J. A.; Revilla-Minaya, C.; Fernandez, C. I.

2026-02-26 developmental biology
10.64898/2026.02.24.707738 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Background and objectivesComparing childrens growth across the world and at different moments in history can yield insight into both health challenges and healthy morphological variation in our species. A difficulty of such comparative analyses is that, in marginalized populations, there are often logistical complications to obtaining repeat measures of individual childrens height and weight. The problem is even more acute for historical populations: bioarchaeological datasets comprise single measures of individuals at death. Additionally, for both contemporary and historical populations, there is often non-trivial uncertainty about childrens ages. Both of these factors complicate estimation of growth trajectories. Here we evaluate the degree to which we can accurately estimate a population-mean growth trajectory using only a small number of (randomly) uncertain measurements, like those that compose many contemporary and bioarchaeological datasets. MethodologyWe recently derived a causal model of human growth from fundamental principles of metabolism and allometry, permitting exploration of genetic and environmental contributions to childrens growth. Here, we fit this model in a Bayesian framework to simulated cross-sectional and longitudinal datasets of varying size, where age is uncertain. ResultsWe show that, for large-scale comparative purposes, reasonably accurate population-mean growth trajectories may be obtained from single height measures of 100 children. However, detailed analyses of pubertal growth spurts and the metabolic and allometric parameters underlying growth require more extensive longitudinal datasets. Conclusions and implicationsWe conclude that this new model and estimation strategy constitute a potentially useful toolkit for comparing mean growth trajectories across contemporary and historical populations.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 13%
14.4%
2
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B
51 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.6%
3
Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience
81 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.9%
4
Journal of The Royal Society Interface
189 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
4.9%
5
Royal Society Open Science
193 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
4.3%
6
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 19%
3.6%
7
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
341 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.6%
50% of probability mass above
8
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.6%
9
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 36%
3.6%
10
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
160 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
2.9%
11
BMC Bioinformatics
383 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.7%
12
American Journal of Biological Anthropology
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.5%
13
Biology Open
130 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
2.1%
14
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
53 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.1%
15
BMC Research Notes
29 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
16
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 17%
1.7%
17
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 47%
1.3%
18
Developmental Biology
134 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
19
Evolutionary Applications
91 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.1%
20
MethodsX
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.0%
21
American Journal of Epidemiology
57 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
22
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 61%
0.8%
23
G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics
222 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.8%
24
G3
33 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.8%
25
Journal of Anatomy
27 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
26
American Journal of Primatology
17 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
27
The American Naturalist
114 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
28
PNAS Nexus
147 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
29
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
30
The Journal of Nutrition
21 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.6%