Comparing Two Waist-to-Height Ratio Measurements with Cardiometabolic Risk Factors among Youth with Diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Waist circumference (WC) is commonly measured by either the World Health Organization (WHO) or National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) protocol. Objective: Compare the associations of WHO vs. NHANES WC-to-height ratio (WHtR) protocols with cardiometabolic risk factors (CMRFs) in a sample of youth with diabetes. Methods: For youth (10–19 years old with type 1 [N=3082] or type 2 [N=533] diabetes) in the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth Study, measurements were obtained of WC (by two protocols), weight, height, fasting lipids (total cholesterol, triglycerides, HDL cholesterol, Non-HDL cholesterol) and blood pressures. Associations of CMRFs with WHO and NHANES WHtR were modeled stratified by body mass index (BMI) percentiles for age/sex: lower BMI (<85th BMI percentile; N=2071) vs. higher BMI (≥85th percentile; N=1594). Results: Among lower-BMI participants, both NHANES and WHO WHtR were associated (p<0.005) with all CMRFs except blood pressure. Among higher-BMI participants, both NHANES and WHO WHtR were associated (p<0.05) with all CMRFs. WHO WHtR was more strongly associated (p<0.05) than NHANES WHtR with triglycerides, non-HDL cholesterol, and systolic blood pressure in lower-BMI participants. Among high-BMI participants, WHO WHtR was more strongly associated (p<0.05) than NHANES WHtR with triglycerides and systolic blood pressure. Conclusion: Among youth with diabetes, WHtR calculated from either WC protocol captures cardiometabolic risk. The WHO WC protocol may be preferable to NHANES WC.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".