A Review of Obesity and Body Fat Distribution and Its Relationship to Cardio-Metabolic Risk in Men and Women of Chinese Origin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Obesity is increasing in people of Chinese background whether in China or in other countries. The purpose of this review is to discuss the associations of obesity in men and women of Chinese background with cardio-metabolic risk with specific attention to body fat distribution. Evidence suggests that current BMI and WC targets may actually underestimate the cardio-metabolic risk in Chinese compared to European populations from which they were derived. Through a number of investigations, we and others have identified that Chinese men and women tend to have higher cardio-metabolic risk factors at a given body size than people of European background (from which guidelines are generally derived). Our additional investigations have indicated that Chinese men and women have greater amounts of VAT, but similar amounts of DSAT at a given body fat than Europeans and it may be the higher VAT in Chinese people that is, in part, responsible for the greater cardio-metabolic risk in the Chinese. Further investigation of this topic should prove fruitful in shedding light onto the determinants of body fat accumulation and distribution that may help to inform obesity prevention and treatment strategies.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".