Prevalence of the metabolic syndrome among the Inuit in Greenland. A comparison between two proposed definitions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To estimate the prevalence of the metabolic syndrome among Greenland Inuit according to the World Health Organization (WHO) definition and the definition suggested by the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP). METHODS: From 1999 to 2001, 917 adult Inuit participated in a health survey in Greenland. The examination included a 75-g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). Body mass index (BMI), waist circumference, waist-to-hip ratio and blood pressure were measured. Plasma glucose, serum insulin, lipids and urine albumin/creatinine ratio were measured. The metabolic syndrome was diagnosed according to the WHO criteria 1999 and to the working definition suggested by the NCEP 2001. RESULTS: Using the WHO and the NCEP criteria, 20.7% and 17.9% of the participants had the metabolic syndrome, respectively. There was a moderate agreement between the two definitions, kappa = 0.56 (95% CI 0.51-0.61). Of those with the WHO metabolic syndrome, 37.9% did not have the NCEP syndrome, and 28.5% of those with the NCEP syndrome were not classified with the metabolic syndrome under the WHO criteria. Compared with the WHO syndrome, men with the NCEP syndrome had higher mean values of waist circumference, BMI and triglycerides, and lower mean values of high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol; among women, triglycerides were higher with the NCEP syndrome. CONCLUSION: The metabolic syndrome is common among Inuit using either the WHO definition or the proposed NCEP definition. The classification disagreement is considerable and a universally accepted definition is needed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".