MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Elevated body mass index and mortality risk in the elderly

2006· review· en· W2048682442 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueObesity Reviews · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBody mass indexOverweightMedicineMeta-analysisConfidence intervalDemographyObesityRelative riskGerontologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this report was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the studies examining the impact of an elevated body mass index (BMI) on mortality risk in elderly (> or =65 years) men and women. A variance-based method of meta-analysis was used to summarize the relationships from available studies. The summary relative risk of all-cause mortality from the 26 analyses that included a risk estimate for a BMI within the overweight range was 1.00 (95% confidence intervals, 0.97-1.03). The summary relative risk of all-cause mortality for the 28 analyses that included a risk estimate for a BMI within the obese range was 1.10 (1.06-1.13). These calculations indicate that a BMI in the overweight range is not associated with a significantly increased risk of mortality in the elderly, while a BMI in the moderately obese range is only associated with a modest increase in mortality risk.

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.

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)0.003
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.954
Threshold uncertainty score0.931

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.308 · 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