Limitations of Weight Velocity Analysis by Commercial Computer Program Growth Analyser Viewer Edition

Commercial software package “Growth Analyser Viewer Edition” (“GAVE”) aims to document, monitor and analyze growth and development in children and adolescents. Although its clinical and scientific use is widespread, there are no published studies that describe the method and its validation. We were informed that GAVE calculates the weight velocity (kg/year) at age t from the weight difference between t and 448 days earlier or at birth, divided by the time difference. We recently discussed a case of false child abuse diagnosis (Pediatric Condition Falsification), resulting in the separation of the child from its parents, in which GAVE played a negative contributing role. To prevent such inappropriate diagnoses, we analyzed GAVE from a schematic representation of the measured clinical weight curve, with precisely defined weight velocities. In conclusion, the 448 days included for weight velocity predictions by GAVE caused the erroneous outcomes. Until the necessary changes to the software are implemented and validated, we advise against the use of GAVE in infants younger than 1.5 years, if multiple weight changes occur within 448 days, and following a long-lasting weight velocity change. Our analysis suggests to discard all medical software packages that lack public description and proof of validation

Pediatric condition falsification misdiagnosed by misjudged weight growth from the curve of measured weights

Objective: Rare disease Background: Pediatric condition falsification (PCF) is a rare form of child abuse in which a caregiver fabricates or induces illness in the child. The diagnosis is difficult and controversial and can easily include false positives. Case Report: A boy, 3.18 kg birthweight (P25 curve), lost weight between age 56 to120 days. Cow milk allergy was suspected, feeding was changed to elementary formula, and he started catch-up weight growth while remaining significantly underweight. His pediatrician continuously interpreted his low weight as insufficient growth, despite prescribing 3 times the normal caloric intake, concluded that the mother purposely malnourished her son, diagnosed PCF, and the boy was separated from his family (days 502–755 of age). PCF was confirmed by 2 other pediatricians and 3 child protection physicians and was supported by 4 child protection agencies and 6 judges. However, proper analysis of the weight growth (kg/year) from the weight curve showed a normal weight gain. Beyond 120 days of age, weight gain at home was significantly above normal (during 347–489 days: 6.2 versus 3 kg/year of the P50). He reached P25 again at around 516 days. Conclusions: The question “How could so many physicians misjudge weight gain?” has scientific and sociologic aspects. Scientifically, low weight was wrongly interpreted as insufficient weight growth, requiring that physicians learn how to assess weight gain from weight curves. Sociologically, physicians seem to follow a diagnosis made by a colleague without proper evaluation. Arguments provided by the parents against this diagnosis seemed to be neglected. Confirmation bias occurs when any information against PCF is disregarded