Lifestyle and weight predictors of a healthy overweight profile over a 20‐year follow‐up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine whether changes in modifiable risk factors [physical activity, cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF), body weight, and diet composition] are associated with the transition to metabolically healthy overweight/obese (MHOW) versus metabolically abnormal overweight/obese. METHODS: Analysis included 1,358 adults [aged 25.0 (3.5) years] from the CARDIA study who were healthy at baseline and had overweight/obesity at follow-up. Participants with zero or one of the following six risk factors were classified as MHOW: elevated triglycerides, LDL, blood pressure, fasting glucose, and HOMA-insulin resistance and low HDL. RESULTS: Over the 20-year follow-up, the sample gained weight (BMI 24.5 to 31.1 kg/m(2) ), and the prevalence of MHOW was 47% at follow-up. After adjusting for changes in CRF, diet, and weight change, physical activity and macronutrient intake were not independently associated with MHOW (P > 0.05), while changes in CRF [fit-unfit: RR (95%) = 0.58, 0.52-0.66; unfit-unfit: RR = 0.67, 0.58-0.76, versus fit-fit] and weight [gain: RR (95%) = 0.54, 0.43-0.67; cycle: RR = 0.74, 0.57-0.94, versus stable] were independently associated with MHOW. CONCLUSIONS: Focusing on high CRF and strategies to limit weight gain may be important for individuals with overweight and obesity in early to mid-adulthood to maintain a metabolically healthy profile.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".