Impact of Waist Circumference on the Relationship Between Blood Pressure and Insulin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hyperinsulinemia has been suggested to be involved in the etiology of obesity-associated hypertension. The objective of the present study was to quantify, in a population-based study, the respective contributions of excess adiposity (body mass index [BMI]), waist circumference (WC), fasting insulin levels, and insulin sensitivity to the variation of resting blood pressure. The Quebec Health Survey was used to obtain fasting plasma insulin and glucose levels and resting blood pressure as well as anthropometric measurements in a representative sample of 907 men and 937 women. When the sample was divided into tertiles of BMI and further stratified on the basis of the 50th percentile of WC (88 cm in men), nonobese men in the first BMI tertile (<23.2 kg/m2) but with abdominal obesity were characterized by an increased systolic blood pressure (SBP) compared with nonobese men with low WC (130+/-18 versus 120+/-11 mm Hg; mean+/-SD; P=0.075). The SBP was comparable to SBP values measured among men in the top BMI tertile (129+/-14 mm Hg for BMI > or =26.6 kg/m2). When subjects were classified into tertiles of fasting insulin and WC, no association between insulin levels and blood pressure was noted, once the variation in WC was considered. Insulin sensitivity (estimated with homeostasis model assessment [HOMA]) did not explain variation in blood pressure in men, whereas the contribution of HOMA in women was of marginal clinical significance (R2 of <1.3%; P<0.0001). These results suggest that the documented association between obesity, fasting insulin, insulin sensitivity, and blood pressure is largely explained by concomitant variation in WC.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".