Morbidity and Mortality Risk Associated With an Overweight BMI in Older Men and Women
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is controversy as to whether older adults with a BMI in the overweight range (25 to 29.9 kg/m2) are at increased health risk and whether they should be encouraged to lose weight. The purpose of this study was to determine whether older adults with a BMI in the overweight range are at increased morbidity and mortality risk. METHODS: Participants consisted of 4968 older (>or=65 years) men and women from the Cardiovascular Health Study limited access dataset. Based on BMI (kg/m2), participants were grouped into normal-weight (20 to 24.9 kg/m2), overweight (25 to 29.9 kg/m2), and obese (>or=30 kg/m2) categories. Participants were followed for up to 9 years to determine if they developed 10 weight-related health outcomes that are pertinent to older adults. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the hazards ratios of morbidity and mortality after adjusting for age, sex, income, smoking, and physical activity. RESULTS: Compared with the normal-weight group, the risks of myocardial infarction, stroke, sleep apnea, urinary incontinence, cancer, and osteoporosis were not different in the overweight group (p>0.05). The risks for arthritis and physical disability were modestly increased in the overweight group (p<0.05), whereas the risk for type 2 diabetes was increased by 78% in the overweight group (p<0.01). After adjusting for all relevant covariates, all-cause mortality risk was 11% lower in the overweight group (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: A BMI in the overweight range was associated with some modest disease risks but a slightly lower overall mortality rate. These findings suggest that a BMI cut-off point of 25 kg/m2 may be overly restrictive for the elderly.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 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 it