Individuals with obesity but no other metabolic risk factors are not at significantly elevated all‐cause mortality risk in men and women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies have examined mortality risk for metabolically healthy obesity, defined as zero or one metabolic risk factors but not as zero risk factors. Thus, we sought to determine the independent mortality risk associated with obesity or elevated glucose, blood pressure or lipids in isolation or clustered together. The sample included 54 089 men and women from five cohort studies (follow-up = 12.8 ± 7.2 years and 4864 [9.0%] deaths). Individuals were categorized as having obesity or elevated glucose, blood pressure or lipids alone or clustered with obesity or another metabolic factor. In our study sample, 6% of individuals presented with obesity but no other metabolic abnormalities. General obesity (hazard ratios [HR], 95% CI = 1.10, 0.8-1.6) and abdominal obesity (HR = 1.24, 0.9-1.7) in the absence of metabolic risk factors were not associated with mortality risk compared to lean individuals. Conversely, diabetes, hypertension and dyslipidaemia in isolation were significantly associated with mortality risk (HR range = 1.17-1.94, P < 0.05). However, when using traditional approaches, obesity (HR = 1.12, 1.02-1.23) is independently associated with mortality risk after statistical adjustment for the other metabolic risk factors. Similarly, metabolically healthy obesity, when defined as zero or one risk factor, is also associated with increased mortality risk (HR = 1.15, 1.01-1.32) as compared to lean healthy individuals. Obesity in the absence of metabolic abnormalities may not be associated with higher risk for all-cause mortality compared to lean healthy individuals. Conversely, elevation of even a single metabolic risk factor is associated with increased mortality risk.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".