Metabolically Healthy Obese Women and Functional Capacity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Obesity and the metabolic syndrome are significant determinants of functional capacity in women. In the past decade, the term "metabolically healthy obese" (MHO) emerged in the literature to identify a distinct category of obese individuals presenting less metabolic impairment than expected. However, MHO women might have similar risk than non-MHO women for nonmetabolic weight-related co-morbidities, including altered functional capacity. METHODS: Eighty six obese women aged from 28 to 74 years old were studied. MHO was defined as a body mass index (BMI) ≥30.0 kg/m(2) with less than one metabolic syndrome criteria based on the Adult Treatment Panel III (ATP III) definition. Walking distance (m) and walking speed (m/sec), evaluated by the 6-min walk test, were used as indicators of functional capacity. RESULTS: Twenty one percent of the sample was considered MHO. Age, BMI, physical activity level, and diastolic blood pressure were not significantly different between MHO and non-MHO women. MHO women performed better on the 6-min walk test (519.8 m±68.2 vs. 448.4 m±67.1; P≤0.01) compared to non-MHO women. Moreover, in multiple regression analyses, MHO status and BMI were significantly associated with walking speed after adjustment for age, physical activity level, the total number of chronic conditions, and arthritis/osteoarthritis. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that MHO women have a better functional capacity than non-MHO women, and therefore could be at lower risk for future disability. However, weight management remains important because BMI was also an independent predictor of functional capacity regardless of metabolic profile.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".