Body mass index and all cause mortality in HUNT and UK Biobank studies: linear and non-linear mendelian randomisation analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
EDITOR'S NOTE: Please see the Editor's Note (doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l1042) on Methodological Criticism and an Updated Analysis OBJECTIVE: To investigate the shape of the causal relation between body mass index (BMI) and mortality. DESIGN: Linear and non-linear mendelian randomisation analyses. SETTING: Nord-Trøndelag Health (HUNT) Study (Norway) and UK Biobank (United Kingdom). PARTICIPANTS: Middle to early late aged participants of European descent: 56 150 from the HUNT Study and 366 385 from UK Biobank. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: All cause and cause specific (cardiovascular, cancer, and non-cardiovascular non-cancer) mortality. RESULTS: 12 015 and 10 344 participants died during a median of 18.5 and 7.0 years of follow-up in the HUNT Study and UK Biobank, respectively. Linear mendelian randomisation analyses indicated an overall positive association between genetically predicted BMI and the risk of all cause mortality. An increase of 1 unit in genetically predicted BMI led to a 5% (95% confidence interval 1% to 8%) higher risk of mortality in overweight participants (BMI 25.0-29.9) and a 9% (4% to 14%) higher risk of mortality in obese participants (BMI ≥30.0) but a 34% (16% to 48%) lower risk in underweight (BMI <18.5) and a 14% (-1% to 27%) lower risk in low normal weight participants (BMI 18.5-19.9). Non-linear mendelian randomisation indicated a J shaped relation between genetically predicted BMI and the risk of all cause mortality, with the lowest risk at a BMI of around 22-25 for the overall sample. Subgroup analyses by smoking status, however, suggested an always-increasing relation of BMI with mortality in never smokers and a J shaped relation in ever smokers. CONCLUSIONS: The previously observed J shaped relation between BMI and risk of all cause mortality appears to have a causal basis, but subgroup analyses by smoking status revealed that the BMI-mortality relation is likely comprised of at least two distinct curves, rather than one J shaped relation. An increased risk of mortality for being underweight was only evident in ever smokers.
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 | 0.350 | 0.686 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".