Diabetes, Abdominal Adiposity, and Atherogenic Dyslipoproteinemia in Women Compared With Men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To understand why atherogenic risk differs more between diabetic and nondiabetic women than between diabetic and nondiabetic men. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS AND RESULTS: Measures of cardiovascular risk, body composition, and serum hormones from the baseline examinations of the Insulin Resistance Atherosclerosis Study on 524 nondiabetic women, 258 diabetic women, 421 nondiabetic men, and 220 diabetic men were compared to detect greater adverse differences in women than in men. Systolic blood pressure; apolipoprotein B (apoB); total cholesterol; apoB-to-apoA-I ratio; non-HDL cholesterol; LDL particle count, small LDL, and intermediate-density lipoprotein by nuclear magnetic resonance; and C-reactive protein exhibited significant diabetes-sex interaction (P < 0.05). ApoB exhibited the most significant interaction (P = 0.0005). Age- and ethnicity-adjusted apoB means were lower in nondiabetic women than nondiabetic men (102.4 vs. 106.8 mg/dl, P < 0.05) but higher in diabetes (115.7 vs. 110.2 mg/dl, P < 0.01). Plotted against BMI, waist circumference was 6% higher and hip circumference 10% lower in diabetic than nondiabetic women (both P < 0.05), whereas the circumference measures did not differ conspicuously between diabetic and nondiabetic men. CONCLUSIONS: In diabetic women, an elevated level of atherogenic particles, as manifested by apoB and LDL particle count, which may result from abdominal adiposity, represents a major treatable cardiovascular risk factor.
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) | 0.001 | 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".