Cardiorespiratory Fitness and Adiposity in Metabolically Healthy Overweight and Obese Youth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Controversy exists surrounding the contribution of fitness and adiposity as determinants of the Metabolically Healthy Overweight(MHO) phenotype in youth. This study investigated the independent contribution of cardiorespiratory fitness and adiposity to the MHO phenotype among overweight and obese youth. METHODS: This cross-sectional study included 108 overweight and obese youth classified as MHO (no cardiometabolic risk factors) or non-MHO (≥1 cardiometabolic risk factor), based on age- and gender specific cut-points for fasting glucose, triglycerides, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and hepaticsteatosis. RESULTS: Twenty-five percent of overweight and obese youth were classified as MHO. This phenotype was associated with lower BMIz-score (BMI z-score: 1.8 ± 0.3 vs 2.1 ± 0.4, P = .02) and waist circumference (99.7 ± 13.2 vs 106.1 ± 13.7 cm, P = .04) compared with non-MHO youth. When matched for fitness level and stratified by BMI z-score (1.6 ± 0.3 vs 2.4 ± 0.2), the prevalence of MHO was four fold higher in the low BMI z-score group (27% vs 7%; P = .03).Multiple logistic regression analyses revealed that the best predictor of MHO was the absence of hepatic steatosis even after adjusting for waist circumference (odds ratio 0.57, 95% confidence interval 0.40–0.80) or BMI z-score (odds ratio 0.59, 95% confidence interval 0.43–0.80). CONCLUSIONS: The MHO phenotype was present in 25% of overweight and obese youth and is strongly associated with lower levels of adiposity,and the absence of hepatic steatosis, but not with cardiorespiratory fitness.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".