MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020029188 · doi:10.1038/oby.2006.192

Different “Weight” of Cardiac and General Adiposity in Predicting Left Ventricle Morphology

2006· article· en· W2020029188 on OpenAlexaff
Gianluca Iacobellis, Caroline M. Pond, Arya M. Sharma

Bibliographic record

VenueObesity · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Disease and Adiposity
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternal medicineMedicineVentricleAdipose tissueCardiologyEpicardial fatContext (archaeology)Body mass indexObesityEpicardial adipose tissueIntra-Abdominal FatEndocrinologyVisceral fatInsulin resistanceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Excess adiposity has been widely related to cardiac morphological changes. Nevertheless, the mechanistic link between increased adiposity and left ventricular (LV) morphology is controversial and not completely understood. In this context, several authors have recently debated the different "weight" of BMI as an index of general adiposity vs. the importance of the epicardial fat depot as a marker of local visceral adiposity in obesity-related LV changes. Studies in uncomplicated obesity suggest that the role of BMI in predicting LV abnormalities remains rather doubtful. In contrast, several lines of evidence suggest that cardiac adiposity could play an important part in the development of cardiac modifications. Epicardial fat as an index of cardiac adiposity could have a functional and mechanical role in obesity-related LV abnormalities. Epicardial fat is clinically correlated with LV mass, atrial dimensions, and diastolic function, but a causal effect of epicardial adipose tissue on cardiac chamber modifications remains to be demonstrated. Nevertheless, the close anatomical and functional relationship of epicardial adipose tissue to the adjacent myocardium should readily allow local, paracrine interactions between these tissues.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.368

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.200 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations52
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueObesitySame topicCardiovascular Disease and AdiposityFrench-language works237,207