MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2769281679 · doi:10.1097/gme.0000000000000989

Is BMI a valid measure of obesity in postmenopausal women?

2017· article· en· W2769281679 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueMenopause The Journal of The North American Menopause Society · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBody Composition Measurement Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institute of Dental and Craniofacial ResearchCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCenters for Disease Control and PreventionNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedicineBody mass indexObesityClassification of obesityGold standard (test)Body fat percentageBody adiposity indexOverweightPopulationLean body massInternal medicineReceiver operating characteristicBody volume indexGynecologyFat massBody weightEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Body mass index (BMI) is a widely used indicator of obesity status in clinical settings and population health research. However, there are concerns about the validity of BMI as a measure of obesity in postmenopausal women. Unlike BMI, which is an indirect measure of obesity and does not distinguish lean from fat mass, dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) provides a direct measure of body fat and is considered a gold standard of adiposity measurement. The goal of this study is to examine the validity of using BMI to identify obesity in postmenopausal women relative to total body fat percent measured by DXA scan. METHODS: Data from 1,329 postmenopausal women participating in the Buffalo OsteoPerio Study were used in this analysis. At baseline, women ranged in age from 53 to 85 years. Obesity was defined as BMI ≥ 30 kg/m and body fat percent (BF%) greater than 35%, 38%, or 40%. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value to evaluate the validity of BMI-defined obesity relative BF%. We further explored the validity of BMI relative to BF% using graphical tools, such as scatterplots and receiver-operating characteristic curves. Youden's J index was used to determine the empirical optimal BMI cut-point for each level of BF% defined obesity. RESULTS: The sensitivity of BMI-defined obesity was 32.4% for 35% body fat, 44.6% for 38% body fat, and 55.2% for 40% body fat. Corresponding specificity values were 99.3%, 97.1%, and 94.6%, respectively. The empirical optimal BMI cut-point to define obesity is 24.9 kg/m for 35% BF, 26.49 kg/m for 38% BF, and 27.05 kg/m for 40% BF according to the Youden's index. CONCLUSIONS: Results demonstrate that a BMI cut-point of 30 kg/m does not appear to be an appropriate indicator of true obesity status in postmenopausal women. Empirical estimates of the validity of BMI from this study may be used by other investigators to account for BMI-related misclassification in older women.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.304
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.269 · 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