Influence of Central and Extremity Circumferences on All‐cause Mortality in Men and Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For a given level of adiposity, greater lower body circumferences appear to exert a protective effect on several disease outcomes including cardiovascular disease and diabetes; however, the independent associations between extremity circumferences and mortality have not been widely investigated. The purpose of this study was to determine the independent and shared influences of upper- and lower-body circumferences on the risk of mortality in a population-based sample of adults. The sample included 10,638 adults 20-69 years of age (5,012 men; 5,626 women) from the nationally representative 1981 Canada Fitness Survey (CFS), who were monitored for over 12 years for mortality. BMI was calculated from measured height and weight. Waist, hip, thigh, calf, and upper arm circumferences were measured using a flexible, nonelastic anthropometric tape. Sex-specific proportional hazards regression models were used to evaluate the relationship between standardized values (Z-scores) of extremity circumference measures, waist circumference (WC) and mortality. Age, smoking status, alcohol consumption, and leisure-time physical activity were collected by questionnaire and were included as covariates. During 131,563 person-years of follow-up, there were 340 deaths in men and 231 in women. After mutual adjustment, WC was positively associated with mortality whereas arm, thigh, and calf circumferences were significantly protective in men, and arm and thigh circumferences were protective in women. In conclusion, waist and extremity circumferences appear to have opposite, independent effects on mortality in this sample of Canadians. Independent of BMI and WC, men and women with larger extremity circumferences had a lower risk of mortality.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".