The Prevalence of Metabolically Healthy Obese Subjects Defined by BMI and Dual‐Energy X‐Ray Absorptiometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nearly one-third of obese (OB) people are reported to be metabolically healthy based on BMI criteria. It is unknown whether this holds true when more accurate adiposity measurements are applied such as dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). We compared differences in the prevalence of cardiometabolic abnormalities among adiposity groups classified using BMI vs. DXA criteria. A total of 1,907 adult volunteers from Newfoundland and Labrador participated. BMI and body fat percentage (%BF; measured using DXA) were measured following a 12-h fasting period. Subjects were categorized as normal weight (NW), overweight (OW), or OB based on BMI and %BF criteria. Cardiometabolic abnormalities considered included elevated triglyceride, glucose, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) levels, decreased high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels, insulin resistance, and hypertension. Subjects were classified as metabolically healthy (0 or 1 cardiometabolic abnormality) or abnormal (≥ 2 cardiometabolic abnormalities). We found low agreement in the prevalence of cardiometabolic abnormalities between BMI and %BF classifications (κ = 0.373, P < 0.001). Among NW and OW subjects, the prevalence of metabolically healthy individuals was similar between BMI and %BF (77.6 vs. 75.7% and 58.8 vs. 62.5%, respectively) however, there was a pronounced difference among OB subjects (34.0 vs. 47.7%, P < 0.05). Similar trends were evident using three additional definitions to characterize metabolically healthy individuals. Our findings indicate that approximately one-half of OB people are metabolically healthy when classified using %BF criteria which is significantly higher than previously reported using BMI. Caution should therefore be taken when making inferences about the metabolic health of an OB population depending on the method used to measure 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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".