Cross-trait familial resemblance for resting blood pressure and body composition and fat distribution: The HERITAGE family study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it