Reference intervals of complete blood count constituents are highly correlated to waist circumference: Should obese patients have their own “normal values?”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Body mass index (BMI), the prevalent indicator of obesity, is not easily grasped by patients nor physicians. Waist circumference (WC) is correlated to obesity, is better understood and has a stronger relationship to the metabolic syndrome. We compiled WC, complete blood count (CBC) parameters as well as other pertinent data of 6766 25-55-year-old US volunteers sampled in the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, in the years 2005-2010. To determine reference intervals of typical US patients visiting their clinician, we used minimal exclusion criteria. We compiled hemoglobin, red blood cell count, hematocrit, mean corpuscular volume (MCV), mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration, mean cell hemoglobin (MCH), red cell distribution width (RDW), platelet count, mean platelet volume, and counts of white blood cells (WBC), neutrophils, lymphocytes, monocytes, eosinophils, and basophils. In addition, we also compiled serum C reactive protein and serum iron. The three major US races were studied and reference interval diagrams were constructed for each CBC parameter plotted against WC. WBC count, RDW, lymphocyte, neutrophil, and red blood cell count increase with WC. Conversely, serum iron and MCH and MCV decrease. These relationships may be related to insulin resistance and chronic activation of the immune system and the resulting low-grade inflammatory state. WC is a strong predictor for many CBC parameters, suggesting that WC should be taken into account when evaluating blood count results. Clinicians who take care of obese patients should be aware of altered hematology and investigate and treat accordingly.
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 | 0.007 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".