Late-breaking abstract: A prospective study of central obesity, overall obesity and incident asthma in adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Measures of body mass index (BMI) and waist circumference (WC) define overall obesity and central obesity respectively. While high BMI has been established as a risk factor for asthma in adults, WC has seldom been investigated. Aims and objectives: We conducted a prospective cohort study to investigate the individual and combined effect of central obesity and overall obesity on adult incident asthma. Methods: A total of 23,245 adults without asthma, 19-55 years of age from the second Norwegian Nord-Trøndelag Health Study (HUNT), were followed for 11 years. WC and BMI were measured and categorised as central obesity (WC ≥88cm in women and ≥102cm in men) and overall obesity (BMI ≥30.0 kg/m 2 ). Incident asthma was self reported asthma during the follow up. Odds ratios (OR) were calculated by logistic regression models adjusted for age, smoking status, education, family history, physical activity, social benefit, economical difficulty and sex. Results: Of the 23,245 adults in the analysis, 12% (n=2,792) were overall obese, 13.6% (n=3,170) were centrally obese at baseline and 3.5% (n=818) had asthma during the 11-year at follow up. Central obesity in the absence of overall obesity was significantly associated with incident asthma (OR 1.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09-1.91). The OR for overall obesity in the absence of central obesity was 1.38 (95% CI 0.96-2.00), similar to central obesity alone. Central obesity combined with overall obesity (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.48-2.23) is compatible with an additive effect of BMI and WC on asthma. Conclusion: Central obesity and overall obesity seem to have an individual effect on incident asthma in adults and an additive effect when in combination.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".