MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2912361626 · doi:10.1002/oby.22365

Estimating Effect of Obesity on Stroke Using G‐Estimation: The ARIC study

2019· article· en· W2912361626 on OpenAlexaff
Maryam Shakiba, Mohammad Alì Mansournia, Jay S. Kaufman

Bibliographic record

VenueObesity · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsWaistMedicineConfoundingObesityHazard ratioStroke (engine)Abdominal obesityDiabetes mellitusAtherosclerosis Risk in CommunitiesInternal medicineProportional hazards modelWaist–hip ratioConfidence intervalDemographyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This study quantified the obesity-stroke relationship by appropriately adjusting for time-varying confounders using G-estimation. METHODS: ; abdominal obesity (AOB) was defined as waist circumference ≥ 102 cm in men and ≥ 88 cm in women and waist to hip ratio ≥ 0.9 in men and ≥ 0.85 in women. The effects of obesity on stroke were estimated using G-estimation and compared with accelerated failure time models using three modeling strategies. RESULTS: The first accelerated failure time model adjusted for baseline covariates excluding metabolic mediators of obesity showed increased risk of stroke for all measures of obesity. Further adjustment for hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and lipid profiles resulted in decreasing hazard ratios (HRs) with intervals that included the null value for all measures of obesity. G-estimated HRs were 1.60 (95% CI: 1.08-2.40), 1.43 (95% CI: 1.14-1.99), and 1.99 (95% CI: 1.50-2.91) for GOB and AOB based on waist circumference and waist to hip ratio. CONCLUSIONS: Both GOB and AOB affected the risk of stroke. The magnitude of the estimates was larger when modeled by G-estimation than when using standard models, suggesting that bias from mishandling of time-varying confounding was toward the null.

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 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)0.000
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 score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.474

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueObesitySame topicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsFrench-language works237,207