Adiposity assessment: explaining the association between obesity, hypertension and stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Obesity is associated with a greater prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors and a higher risk of cardiovascular events, and contributes to the rise in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality worldwide. Increased BMI is established as an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Attention has recently been drawn to alternate measures of adiposity/obesity, such as waist circumference, waist-to-hip ratio and waist-to-height ratio, that provide information regarding body fat distribution. Although BMI is the established clinical measurement to estimate CVD risk associated with excess bodyweight, there is evidence suggesting that abdominal obesity could represent a better marker of CVD risk than BMI. It is now recognized that abdominally obese individuals tend to have higher blood pressure. A major cardiovascular risk factor associated with stroke is systemic hypertension followed closely by obesity. Clinical adiposity indices used to describe obesity linked with systemic hypertension and stroke incidence are reviewed in this article. In summary, BMI, waist circumference, waist-to-hip ratio and waist-to-height ratio measurements are all useful tools for assessing adiposity/obesity in clinical practice, and should be evaluated with other cardiometabolic risk factors to refine cardiovascular risk stratification.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".