Cross-trait familial resemblance for resting blood pressure and body composition and fat distribution: The HERITAGE family study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cross-trait familial resemblance between resting blood pressure (BP) and body composition and fat distribution was examined in 98 Caucasian families participating in the HERITAGE Family Study by using a multivariate familial correlation model assessing both intraindividual and interindividual cross-trait correlations. The 520 family members were sedentary at baseline examination, and both resting systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) BP were cross-analyzed with each of the following 10 indications of body composition and fat distribution: percent body fat (%BF), abdominal visceral fat (AVF), body mass index (BMI), fat-free mass (FFM), fat mass (FM), sum of eight skinfolds (SF), total abdominal fat (TAF), ratio of trunk-to-extremity skinfolds (TER), waist circumference (WAIST), ratio of waist-to-hip circumferences (WHR). Five of the variables were also corrected for fat mass (AVFf, TAFf, TERf, WAISTf, WHRf) to index these measures independent of total degree of adiposity. In general, the results suggested strictly intraindividual cross-trait resemblance, with occasional spouse cross-trait resemblance, but few or no sibling or parent-offspring cross-trait correlations. This pattern is largely consistent with nongenetic specific environmental determinants for the BP-body composition and fat distribution covariation, with possibly some common environmental influence between spouses and negligible genetic effects. The only findings suggesting any familial cross-trait resemblance were significant sibling correlations for DBP-FFM and DBP-WHR, although the parent-offspring correlation was not significant. These findings suggest that the observed BP-body composition and fat distribution cross-trait correlations in these sedentary families are probably not due to multifactorial effects such as polygenic and/or common familial environmental effects. Whether or not other factors such as nonadditive effects are involved warrants further investigation using other methods. Am. J. Hum. Biol. 12:32-41, 2000. Copyright 2000 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".