Relationships between visceral, trunk and whole-body adipose tissue weights by cadaver dissection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the important association of central adiposity and cardiovascular and other risk factors, there are only three reported values for directly weighed visceral adipose tissue (AT). All other reported values are based on medical imaging techniques. OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to investigate the relationships between visceral, trunk and total AT weights in older men and women. METHODS: Data was obtained from the combination of two studies involving the complete dissection of 15 male and 16 female cadavers (age range 55-94 years) and allowed for compartmentation into skin, AT, muscle, bone and a residual component, divided over six body segments: head, trunk, legs and arms. Visceral AT was separated from trunk subcutaneous AT. All tissues were weighed. RESULTS: Visceral AT weights ranged from 0.3 to 5.8 kg. Mean values were 3.00 +/- 1.52 kg (mean +/- SE) for the men and 3.24 +/- 1.67 kg for the women. These were not significantly different (p = 0.68), but visceral AT weight, expressed as a percentage of total body AT weight was significantly greater (p = 0.02) in the men (16.8 +/- 5.4%) than in the women (12.9 +/- 3.5%). Correlations between visceral AT weight and the weight of subcutaneous AT of the trunk were highly significant (men, r = 0.70, women, r = 0.81, p < 0.005), with similar slopes for the two sexes. The correlation coefficients of visceral with total body AT weights were even greater (men, r = 0.83 and women, r = 0.96, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In this sample of older Belgians, visceral AT is strongly related to total body adiposity, corresponding to an increment of about 200 g of visceral AT for every kilogram of total AT in men and about 180 g in women. Because of this relationship, techniques such as skinfold calipers and ultrasound for assessing whole body fatness from measurement of only the subcutaneous layer are thus able to account for visceral adiposity.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".