MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2552793009 · doi:10.1111/cob.12165

Association between ratio indexes of body composition phenotypes and metabolic risk in Italian adults

2016· article· en· W2552793009 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Obesity · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersUniversità degli Studi di Milano
KeywordsMedicineBioelectrical impedance analysisLogistic regressionBody mass indexMass indexInternal medicineFat massMetabolic syndromeMultivariate analysisObesity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ratio between fat mass (FM) and fat-free mass (FFM) has been used to discriminate individual differences in body composition and improve prediction of metabolic risk. Here, we evaluated whether the use of a visceral adipose tissue-to-fat-free mass index (VAT:FFMI) ratio was a better predictor of metabolic risk than a fat mass index to fat-free mass index (FMI:FFMI) ratio. This is a cross-sectional study including 3441 adult participants (age range 18-81; men/women: 977/2464). FM and FFM were measured by bioelectrical impedance analysis and VAT by ultrasonography. A continuous metabolic risk Z score and harmonised international criteria were used to define cumulative metabolic risk and metabolic syndrome (MetS), respectively. Multivariate logistic and linear regression models were used to test associations between body composition indexes and metabolic risk. In unadjusted models, VAT:FFMI was a better predictor of MetS (OR 8.03, 95%CI 6.69-9.65) compared to FMI:FFMI (OR 2.91, 95%CI 2.45-3.46). However, the strength of association of VAT:FFMI and FMI:FFMI became comparable when models were adjusted for age, gender, clinical and sociodemographic factors (OR 4.06, 95%CI 3.31-4.97; OR 4.25, 95%CI 3.42-5.27, respectively). A similar pattern was observed for the association of the two indexes with the metabolic risk Z score (VAT:FFMI: unadjusted b = 0.69 ± 0.03, adjusted b = 0.36 ± 0.03; FMI:FFMI: unadjusted b = 0.28 ± 0.028, adjusted b = 0.38 ± 0.02). Our results suggest that there is no real advantage in using either VAT:FFMI or FMI:FFMI ratios as a predictor of metabolic risk in adults. However, these results warrant confirmation in longitudinal studies.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.184

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.335 · 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