Comparison of body mass index and waist circumference as predictors of cardiometabolic health in a population of young Canadian adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to investigate whether waist circumference (WC) or body mass index (BMI) is a better predictor of blood lipid concentrations among young men and women from different ethnocultural groups. METHODS: Participants were 1181 healthy men (n = 358) and women (n = 823) aged 20-29 years taken from the cross-sectional Toronto Nutrigenomics and Health Study. Analyses were conducted separately for men and women, and for Caucasian and East Asian ethnocultural groups. Serum triglycerides (TG) and total to HDL cholesterol ratio (TC:HDL cholesterol) were used as outcomes. Associations between the adiposity and blood lipid measures were examined using partial correlations and odds ratios derived from logistic regression models. RESULTS: WC had a stronger association with serum lipid concentrations than BMI. WC was significantly related to TG and TC:HDL cholesterol after adjusting for BMI and covariates among men and women (P </= 0.01). However, after adjusting for WC and covariates, BMI was not significantly associated with the two serum lipid measures. WC was a better predictor of TG and TC:HDL among all sex and ethnocultural subgroups except among East Asian women where little difference between the two measures was observed. CONCLUSIONS: WC is a stronger predictor of cardiometabolic health when compared with BMI among young adults, especially among men.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".