MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Elevated body mass index and mortality risk in the elderly

2006· review· en· W2048682442 on OpenAlexaff
Ian Janssen, Amy E. Mark

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.010
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations385
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueObesity ReviewsSame topicNutrition and Health in AgingFrench-language works237,207