MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109028497 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.110387

Using the Edmonton obesity staging system to predict mortality in a population-representative cohort of people with overweight and obesity

2011· article· en· W2109028497 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Raj Padwal, Nicholas M. Pajewski, David B. Allison, Arya M. Sharma

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBariatric Surgery and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteUniversity of AlbertaGovernment of Alberta
KeywordsMedicineOverweightHazard ratioNational Health and Nutrition Examination SurveyObesityBody mass indexCohortPopulationConfidence intervalComorbidityDemographyAnthropometryWaistProportional hazards modelMetabolic syndromeGerontologyInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Anthropometric-based classification schemes for excess adiposity do not include direct assessment of obesity-related comorbidity and functional status and thus have limited clinical utility. We examined the ability of the Edmonton obesity staging system, a 5-point ordinal classification system that considers comorbidity and functional status, in predicting mortality in a nationally representative US sample. METHODS: We analyzed data from the National Health and Human Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) III (1988-1994) and the NHANES 1999-2004, with mortality follow-up through to the end of 2006. Adults (age ≥ 20 yr) with overweight or obesity who had been randomized to the morning session at the mobile examination centre were scored according to the Edmonton obesity staging system. We examined the relationship between staging system scores and mortality, and Cox proportional hazards models were adjusted for the presence of the metabolic syndrome or hypertriglyceridemic waist. RESULTS: Over 75% of the cohort with overweight or obesity were given scores of 1 or 2. Scores of 4 could not be reliably assigned because specific data elements were lacking. Survival curves clearly diverged when stratified by scores of 0-3, but not when stratified by obesity class alone. Within the data from the NHANES 1988-1994, scores of 2 (hazard ratio [HR] 1.57; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.16 to 2.13) and 3 (HR 2.69; 95% CI 1.98 to 3.67) were associated with increased mortality compared with scores of 0 or 1, even after adjustment for body mass index and the metabolic syndrome. We found similar results after adjusting for hypertriglyceridemic waist (i.e., waist circumference ≥ 90 cm and a triglyceride level ≥ 2 mmol/L for men; the corresponding values for women were ≥ 85 cm and ≥ 1.5 mmol/L), as well as in a cohort eligible for bariatric surgery. INTERPRETATION: The Edmonton obesity staging system independently predicted increased mortality even after adjustment for contemporary methods of classifying adiposity. The Edmonton obesity staging system may offer improved clinical utility in assessing obesity-related risk and prioritizing treatment.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations380
Published2011
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association JournalSame topicBariatric Surgery and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207