Association between Visceral Fat and Body Mass Index in Patients with Cirrhosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Obesity has recently become a critical problem in patients with cirrhosis in Japan; however, its true prevalence and prognosis remain poorly understood. In this study, we investigated abdominal fat areas, including subcutaneous and visceral fat areas (VFA), in 49 cirrhotic patients and analyzed the association between VFA and body mass index (BMI). Fat areas were examined by computed tomography. Patients were classified as somatometric obesity and visceral obesity based on their BMI (cut-off value: 25 kg/m2) and VFA (cut-off value: 100 cm2), respectively. The mean BMI was 23.5±3.3 kg/m2 (<25 kg/m2, 35 cases; 25 kg/m2, 14 cases) and mean VFA was 108.5±118.8 cm2 (<100 cm2, 25 cases; 100 cm2, 24 cases). Thirteen out of 14 patients with BMI 25 kg/m2 had a VFA 100 cm2, and 11 of 35 patients with BMI <25 kg/m2 had a VFA 100 cm2. Thus, almost half of the cirrhotic patients in this study had visceral obesity, including a high proportion of patients with BMI <25 kg/m2. These results suggest that visceral obesity, as well as BMI, should be considered in patients with cirrhosis, and individual nutritive management regimes should be designed according to the results.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".