The relation between body mass index and waist-hip ratio in knee osteoarthritis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The best measure of body habitus as a risk factor for chronic disease is not well defined. Our intent was to examine the relation between waist-hip ratio (WHR) and body mass index (BMI) as a measurement of body habitus in patients with end-stage knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: We reviewed the data of 200 consecutive patients in our registry undergoing knee replacement surgery for demographic data of age, sex, BMI and WHR. We performed a stratified analysis by sex and calculated the risk ratios (RRs) to describe the risk of being classified as obese by WHR for those considered obese by the BMI criteria. RESULTS: A similar percentage of male and female patients were classified as obese by the BMI criteria (38% v. 42%, respectively). Men were classified as obese more often than women by WHR (92% v. 82%). The RR of being obese as determined by WHR if classified as obese by the BMI criteria was 1.04 (95% confidence interval [CI]0.91-1.18) for men and 1.23 (95% CI 1.03-1.46) for women. CONCLUSION: Among patients with knee OA, the overlap between BMI and WHR is greater in women than men. This difference has implications for defining the prevalence of metabolic syndrome in this population.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".