Does the relationship between waist circumference, morbidity and mortality depend on measurement protocol for waist circumference?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is currently no consensus regarding the optimal protocol for measurement of waist circumference (WC), and no scientific rationale is provided for any of the WC protocols recommended by leading health authorities. A panel of experts conducted a systematic review of 120 studies (236 samples) to determine whether measurement protocol influenced the relationship of WC with morbidity of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and diabetes and with mortality from all causes and from CVD. Statistically significant associations with WC were reported for 65% (152) of the samples across all outcomes combined. Common WC protocols performed measurement at the minimal waist (33%), midpoint (26%) and umbilicus (27%). Non-significant associations were reported for 27% (64) of the samples. Most of these protocols measured WC at the midpoint (36%), umbilicus (28%) or minimal waist (25%). Significant associations were observed for 17 of the remaining 20 samples, but these were not significant when adjustment was made for covariates. For these samples, the most common WC protocols were the midpoint (35%) and umbilicus (30%). Similar patterns of association between the outcomes and all WC protocols were observed across sample size, sex, age, race and ethnicity. Our findings suggest that WC measurement protocol has no substantial influence on the association between WC, all-cause and CVD mortality, CVD and diabetes.
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 | 0.370 | 0.647 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".