Body composition phenotypes and obesity paradox
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The obesity paradox is a highly controversial concept that may be attributed to methodological limitations related to its identification. One of the primary concerns is the use of BMI to define obesity. This index does not differentiate lean versus adipose tissue compartments (i.e. body composition) confounding health consequences for morbidity and mortality, especially in clinical populations. This review will describe the past year's evidence on the obesity paradox phenomenon, primarily focusing on the role of abnormal body composition phenotypes in explaining the controversies observed in the literature. RECENT FINDINGS: In spite of the substantial number of articles investigating the obesity paradox phenomenon, less than 10% used a direct measure of body composition and when included, it was not fully explored (only adipose tissue compartment evaluated). When lean tissue or muscle mass is taken into account, the general finding is that a high BMI has no protective effect in the presence of low muscle mass and that it is the latter that associates with poor prognosis. SUMMARY: In view of the body composition variability of patients with identical BMI, it is unreasonable to rely solely on this index to identify obesity. The consequences of a potential insubstantial obesity paradox are mixed messages related to patient-related prognostication.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".