The WHO and NCEP/ATPIII Definitions of the Metabolic Syndrome in Postmenopausal Women: Are They So Different?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to examine the metabolic risk profile in postmenopausal women characterized by either the metabolic syndrome (MS) as defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) or the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Adult Treatment Panel III (ATPIII). METHODS: One hundred and eight postmenopausal women (56.9 +/- 4.2 years; 28.5 +/- 5.9 kg/m(2)) were examined. Each underwent an oral glucose tolerance test, an euglycemic-hyperinsulinemic clamp, an assessment of body fat distribution by computed tomography, a complete plasma lipid-lipoprotein profile, and standard measurements of inflammatory markers. RESULTS: The prevalence of the MS-WHO was 29.6% in our women. Type 2 diabetes was found in 28.1% of women with the MS-WHO. Thirty-one percent of women had the MS-ATP, from which 36.4% had type 2 diabetes. Among the 32 women identified as having MS-WHO, 25 (78.1 %) were also identified as having the MS-ATP. On the other hand, among the 34 women identified as having MS-ATP, 24 (70.0 %) also had MS-WHO (kappa = 0.60). When we subdivided our sample of women as having either isolated MS-WHO, isolated MS-ATP, or combined MS-WHO and MS-ATP, we observed a more deteriorated metabolic risk profile (higher values for visceral adipose tissue, 2-h plasma glucose, and lower HDL-cholesterol concentrations) in women characterized by isolated MS-ATP compared to women with isolated MS-WHO. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that, in postmenopausal women, the concordance in the identification of subjects with the MS using each of the proposed definitions is only moderate.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".