Prevalence of the metabolic syndrome and its components in Northwest Russia: the Arkhangelsk study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The metabolic syndrome (MetS) is a cluster of risk factors associated with morbidity from cardiovascular disease (CVD) and associated mortality. Russia has one of the highest CVD mortality rates in the world. However, the prevalence of MetS in Russia remains largely unknown. The aim of this study is to estimate the prevalence of MetS and its components in an urban Russian setting. METHODS: Altogether, 3705 Russian adults aged 18-90 years were enrolled in a cross-sectional study in Arkhangelsk (Northwest Russia). All subjects completed a questionnaire and underwent a physical examination. Blood samples were taken and analyzed in TromsØ, Norway. Three separate modified definitions of MetS were used, namely, the National Education Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III (NCEP), the American Heart Association/National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (AHA/NHLBI) and the International Diabetes Federation (IDF). To ensure comparability of the findings, the prevalence data were standardized using world and European standard populations and Russian population. RESULTS: The age-standardized (Segi's world standard population) prevalence rates of the MetS among women were 19.8% (95% CI: 18.1-21.5), 20.6% (95% CI: 18.9-22.3) and 23.1% (95% CI: 21.3-24.9) by the NCEP, AHA/NHLBI and IDF criteria, respectively. The corresponding rates for men were 11.5% (95% CI: 10.1-12.9), 13.7% (95% CI: 12.2-15.2) and 11.0% (95% CI: 9.7-12.4). Among subjects with MetS, central obesity was more common among women, while elevated triglycerides and blood glucose were more common among men. Almost perfect agreement was found between the NCEP and AHA/NHLBI criteria (kappa = 0.94). There was less agreement between the used definitions of MetS in men than in women. CONCLUSIONS: While the prevalence of MetS among Russian women is comparable to the data for Europe and the U.S., the prevalence among Russian men is considerably lower than among their European and North-American counterparts. Our results suggest that MetS is unlikely to be a major contributor to the high cardiovascular mortality among Russian men. Further studies of MetS determinants and associated cardiovascular risk are needed for a better understanding of the mechanisms leading to the exceptionally high cardiovascular mortality in Russia.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".