Discrimination of Health Risk by Combined Body Mass Index and Waist Circumference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: NIH Clinical Guidelines (1998) recommend the measurement of waist circumference (WC, centimeters) within body mass index (BMI, kilograms per square meter) categories as a screening tool for increased health risk. RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES: The Canada Heart Health Surveys (1986 through 1992) were used to describe the prevalence of the metabolic syndrome in Canada and to test the use of the NIH guidelines for predicting metabolic risk factors. The sample included 7981 participants ages 20 to 74 years who had complete data for WC, BMI, high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol, triglycerides, diabetic status, and systolic and diastolic blood pressures. National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III risk categories were used to identify the metabolic syndrome and associated risk factors. Logistic regression was used to test the hypothesis that WC improves the prediction of the metabolic syndrome, within overweight (25 to 29.9 kg/m(2)) and obese I (30 to 34.9 kg/m(2)) BMI categories. RESULTS: The prevalence of the metabolic syndrome was 17.0% in men and 13.2% in women. The odds ratios (OR) for the prediction of the metabolic syndrome were elevated in overweight [OR, 1.85; 95% confidence interval (95%CI), 1.02 to 3.35] and obese (OR, 2.35; 95%CI, 1.25 to 4.42) women with a high WC compared with overweight and obese women with a low WC, respectively. On the other hand, WC was not predictive of the metabolic syndrome or component risk factors in men, within BMI categories. DISCUSSION: In women already at increased health risk because of an elevated BMI, the additional measurement of WC may help identify cardiovascular risk.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".