Raised BMI cut-off for overweight in Greenland Inuit – a review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Obesity is associated with increased morbidity and premature death. Obesity rates have increased worldwide and the WHO recommends monitoring. A steep rise in body mass index (BMI), a measure of adiposity, was detected in Greenland from 1963 to 1998. Interestingly, the BMI starting point was in the overweight range. This is not conceivable in a disease-free, physically active, pre-western hunter population. OBJECTIVE: This led us to reconsider the cut-off point for overweight among Inuit in Greenland. DESIGN AND FINDINGS: We found 3 different approaches to defining the cut-off point of high BMI in Inuit. First, the contribution to the height by the torso compared to the legs is relatively high. This causes relatively more kilograms per centimetre of height that increases the BMI by approximately 10% compared to Caucasian whites. Second, defining the cut-off by the upper 90-percentile of BMI from height and weight in healthy young Inuit surveyed in 1963 estimated the cut-off point to be around 10% higher compared to Caucasians. Third, if similar LDL-cholesterol and triglycerides are assumed for a certain BMI in Caucasians, the corresponding BMI in Inuit in both Greenland and Canada is around 10% higher. However, genetic admixture of Greenland Inuit and Caucasian Danes will influence this difference and hamper a clear distinction with time. CONCLUSION: Defining overweight according to the WHO cut-off of a BMI above 25 kg/m(2) in Greenland Inuit may overestimate the number of individuals with elevated BMI.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".