C‐Reactive Protein Identifies Low‐Risk Metabolically Healthy Obese Persons: The European Prospective Investigation of Cancer–Norfolk Prospective Population Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Conflicting data exist about the cardiovascular risk of metabolically healthy obese persons. The prognostic value of C-reactive protein (CRP) in this intriguing group is unknown. We assessed the association between CRP levels and the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) in metabolically healthy persons with abdominal obesity. METHODS AND RESULTS: In the European Prospective Investigation of Cancer-Norfolk prospective cohort, CRP levels and information on metabolic syndrome criteria were available for 7279 participants, of whom 825 (11%) developed CHD during a follow-up period of 10.9±1.8 years. There was a trend toward a higher multivariable-adjusted hazard ratio for CHD in metabolically healthy obese participants with CRP levels >2 mg/L compared with <2 mg/L (hazard ratio 1.59, 95% CI 0.97-2.62, P=0.066). Metabolically unhealthy obese participants had significantly higher CHD risk compared with metabolically healthy obese participants with CRP levels <2 mg/L (hazard ratio 1.88, 95% CI 1.20-2.94, P=0.006). Most important, we found that the risk of CHD among metabolically healthy obese persons with CRP levels <2 mg/L was comparable to that of metabolically healthy nonobese persons (hazard ratio 0.91, 95% CI 0.60-1.39, P=0.674). CONCLUSIONS: Among metabolically healthy obese persons, low CRP levels were associated with a CHD risk comparable to that of metabolically healthy nonobese persons. CRP appears to be an easy and widely available method for identifying a low-risk subpopulation among metabolically healthy obese persons.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".