Bibliographic record
Abstract
Visceral obesity is associated with metabolic abnormalities that increase the risk of type 2 diabetes and coronary heart disease. Obese patients with a substantial accumulation of visceral adipose tissue are characterized by higher insulinaemic and glycaemic responses during an oral glucose challenge as well as by a deteriorated plasma lipoprotein-lipid profile compared with individuals with normal body weights or obese subjects with low levels of visceral adipose tissue. Results of the Quebec Cardiovascular Study have shown that the cluster of metabolic disturbances observed among subjects with visceral obesity (hyperinsulinaemia, hyperapolipoprotein B and small, dense low-density lipoprotein (LDL) particles) is associated with a 20-fold increase in the risk of coronary heart disease in a sample of middle-aged men followed over 5 years. Therefore, we have developed a simple screening approach in order to help physicians and health professionals identify at low cost individuals who would be characterized by this cluster of atherogenic abnormalities. We found that the simultaneous presence of an elevated waist girth combined with moderate hypertriglyceridaemia ('hypertriglyceridaemic waist') could adequately identify a large proportion (approximately 80%) of carriers of the above triad of atherogenic metabolic abnormalities (hyperinsulinaemia, hyperapolipoprotein B and small, dense LDL particles). Finally, there is evidence suggesting that the risk of an acute coronary syndrome in these viscerally obese patients may not always be related to the extent of coronary artery stenosis, providing further support to the notion that additional markers of thrombosis/inflammation should be considered. Thus, the stabilization of the atherosclerotic plaque, rather than its regression may even become a more legitimate and feasible therapeutic objective for the management of the coronary heart disease risk in the viscerally obese patient. Although these notions are based on a plausible metabolic rationale, randomized trials with proper end-points will be needed to determine the clinical benefits associated with the management of visceral obesity and related metabolic complications.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".