Impact of abdominal obesity and systemic hypertension on risk of coronary heart disease in men and women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of our study was to determine the respective contributions of waist circumference and systemic hypertension (HTN) to coronary heart disease (CHD) risk in a large population-based cohort representative of a contemporary European population. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 9580 men and 12 250 women aged 45-79 years were followed for 11.4 years. Over the follow-up, 2191 CHD events were recorded. After adjusting for traditional CHD risk factors, individuals with high blood pressure (BP) and high waist circumference were at an increased CHD risk [hazard ratio 3.04; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.06-4.48 and 2.90 (1.85-4.55) in men and women, respectively], compared with individuals with both low waist circumference and BP. Among individuals with normal BP, those in the top waist circumference tertile were at an increased CHD risk compared with those in the bottom waist circumference tertile (hazard ratio 2.66; 95% CI 1.59-4.45 and 2.11; 95% CI 1.12-3.97 in men and women, respectively). Within each physical activity category, a linear positive association was observed between waist circumference tertiles and both SBP (P for trend <0.001) and DBP (P for trend <0.001). Within each waist circumference tertile, inactive individuals had higher SBP than active individuals (P for trend <0.001). CONCLUSION: Our results show that abdominal obesity (measured by waist circumference) and HTN had both independent and additive contributions to CHD risk. We also found that physical inactivity and abdominal obesity contribute to elevated BP in primary prevention settings.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".