Risk factor paradox in wasting diseases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Emerging data indicate that conventional cardiovascular risk factors (e.g. hypercholesterolemia and obesity) are paradoxically associated with better survival in distinct populations with wasting. We identify these populations and review survival paradoxes and common pathophysiologic mechanisms. RECENT FINDINGS: A 'reverse epidemiology' of cardiovascular risk is observed in chronic kidney disease, chronic heart failure, chronic obstructive lung disease, cancer, AIDS and rheumatoid arthritis, and in the elderly. These populations apparently have slowly progressive to full-blown wasting and significantly greater short-term mortality than the general population. The survival paradoxes may result from the time differential between the two competing risk factors [i.e. over-nutrition (long-term killer but short-term protective) versus undernutrition (short-term killer)]. Hemodynamic stability of obesity, protective adipokine profile, endotoxin-lipoprotein interaction, toxin sequestration of fat, antioxidation of muscle, reverse causation, and survival selection may also contribute. SUMMARY: The seemingly counterintuitive risk factor paradox is the hallmark of chronic disease states or conditions associated with wasting disease at the population level. Studying similarities among these populations may help reveal common pathophysiologic mechanisms of wasting disease, leading to a major shift in clinical medicine and public health beyond the conventional Framingham paradigm and to novel therapeutic approaches related to wasting and short-term 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".