MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Association between upper leg length and metabolic syndrome among US elderly participants-results from the NHANES (2009-2010).

2016· article· en· W2253488260 on OpenAlexaff
Mike Pryzbek, Jian Liu

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNational Health and Nutrition Examination SurveyMetabolic syndromeDyslipidemiaWaistNational Cholesterol Education ProgramLogistic regressionInternal medicineOdds ratioObesityDemographyBody mass indexInsulin resistanceGerontologyPopulationEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between upper leg length (ULL) and metabolic syndrome (MetS) in older adults. METHODS: Data was collected from National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey (NHANES, 2009-2010). 786 individuals (385 males and 401 females) who were 60 years of age or older were included in this analysis. MetS was defined as having at least three of following conditions, i.e., central obesity, dyslipidemia, insulin resistance, and hypertension based on National Cholesterol Education Program guidelines. ULL was grouped into gender-specific tertiles. RESULTS: 328 (41.7%) of participants were categorized as having MetS (38.7% in men and 49.1% in women, P = 0.002). Compared to individuals in the 1(st) tertile (T1) of ULL, those in the 3(rd) tertile (T3) had lower levels of triglycerides (120.8 vs. 153.1 mg/dL, P = 0.045), waist circumference (100.7 vs. 104.2 cm, P = 0.049), and systolic blood pressure (126.7 vs. 131.4 mmHg, P = 0.005), but higher levels of high-density-lipoprotein cholesterol (58.1 vs. 52.4 mg/dL, P = 0.024). The odds ratios (95% CI) of MetS from multivariate logistic regression were 0.57 (0.32-1.03) for individuals in the T2 of ULL and 0.39 (0.24-0.64) for individuals in the T3 of ULL, respectively (P-value for the trend 0.022). CONCLUSIONS: ULL was negatively associated with MetS in older adults. Further research is needed to identify potential mechanisms.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.221 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicNutrition and Health in Aging→French-language works237,207→