Measurement of Obesity as Indicated by Body Mass Index Using Waist-Hip Ratio among Apparently Healthy Students in University of Maiduguri, Nigeria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AbstractBackground: Body Mass Index (BMI) which is often calculated by dividing the weight (kg) by height squared (m2), was chosen as a simple measurement of body weight in relation to height. Waist circumference (WC) and Waist-hip-ratio (WHR) are important indices to assess abdominal obesity. Waist circumference (WC) is an expedient and easy measurement of intra-abdominal fat mass and total body bulk.Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted on 130 undergraduate students of University of Maiduguri (comprising of 65 male students and 65 female students), with their ages ranging from 18-30 years. A written or verbal consent was obtained from the subjects after explaining to them the objectives as well as the methodology of the study. Information about age and socioeconomic status was collected from each student in a pre-designed questionnaire. The height, weight, waist circumference, hip circumference were also taken on each individual using standard anthropometric methodology.Results: The prevalence of abdominal obesity in the present study, according to waist circumference (WC), and waist-hip-ratio (WHR) was 24.6% and 67.7% in males respectively, while 66.2% and 92.3% in female students respectively. Conclusion: The females in the same age group as males showed a tendency towards higher BMI and were classified as overweight and this could be attributed to reduced physical exercise and diet compared to their male counterparts.Keywords: body mass index, hip circumference, obesity, waist circumference, waist-hip ratio
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".