Obesity and hypertension in an Iranian cohort study; Iranian women experience higher rates of obesity and hypertension than American women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Once considered as the main public health problem in developed countries, obesity has become a major problem throughout the world and developing countries, like Iran, are joining the global obesity pandemic. We determined the prevalence of overweight, obesity, and hypertension in a large cohort of Iranians and compared age-adjusted rates with the rates in the US. METHODS: Golestan Cohort Study is a population-based study of 8,998 men and women, aged 35-81 years, from urban and rural areas. Anthropometric parameters were measured by interviewers. Prevalence rates were directly adjusted to the 2000 United States standard population. RESULTS: The age-adjusted prevalence rates of overweight (BMI > or = 25 kg/m2) and obesity (BMI > or = 30 kg/m2) in this Iranian population were 62.2% and 28.0%, respectively. Both overweight and obesity were more common in women than men. Age-adjusted prevalence of overweight was significantly higher in Iranian women compared to the American women (68.6% vs. 61.6%), while the age-adjusted prevalence of obesity is closer in these two populations (34.9% vs. 33.2%). Iranian men-compared to American men-had significantly lower age-adjusted prevalence of overweight (53.7% vs. 68.8%) and obesity (16.2% vs. 27.5%). Age-adjusted prevalence of hypertension was higher in Iranian women than American women (35.7% vs. 30.5%). Diabetes mellitus was reported in 6.2% of participants. Mean waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) among women was 0.96. Smoking rates in men and women were 33.2% and 2.2%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of obesity, overweight, and hypertension in Iran is as high as the US. However, Iranian women are more obese than American women and Iranian men are less obese than their American counterparts. This discrepancy might be due to the low rate of smoking among Iranian women. Iranian women have higher mean WHR than what WHO has defined in 19 other populations.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".