Role of Waist Measures in Characterizing the Lipid and Blood Pressure Assessment of Adolescents Classified by Body Mass Index
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine if the interaction of waist circumference percentile and waist to height ratio(WHtR) with body mass index (BMI) may serve to provide further risk specification in the lipid and blood pressure assessment of adolescents beyond BMI classification. DESIGN: Population-based, cross-sectional study. Data collected during the 2009-2010 academic school year. SETTING: Geographically and administratively defined Niagara Region, Ontario, Canada. Data collected in school, during subjects’ mandatory physical education class. Part of the Heart Niagara Inc Healthy Heart Schools’ Program. PARTICIPANTS: Entire population of grade 9 (14- and 15-year-old) students in the Niagara Region, Ontario.Four thousand eight hundred eighty-four students enrolled in grade 9 during the study period, of which 4104 participated (51% male) and 3248 (79%) had complete data. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Nonfasting lipid values and blood pressure categories in subjects categorized based on BMI/waist circumference percentile and BMI/WHtR. RESULTS: The associations between blood pressure, lipid profile, and measures of adiposity (BMI alone, BMI/waist circumference percentile, and BMI/WHtR) were statistically significant but had a limited strength and were not statistically significant from each other. For overweight and obese subjects, increased WHtR categories were associated with worsened lipid profile and increased odds of hypertension both relative to subjects with both normal BMI and normal WHtR and subjects with normal WHtR within each BMI category. CONCLUSION: Waist measures should be included in the screening and assessment of overweight and obese adolescents.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".