MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2921145068 · doi:10.1161/circ.139.suppl_1.mp29

Abstract MP29: Body Fat and Cardiovascular Disease Risk in Postmenopausal Women With Normal Body Mass Index: the Women’s Health Initiative

2019· article· en· W2921145068 on OpenAlexaff
Guo‐Chong Chen, Rhonda Arthur, Neil M. Iyengar, Victor Kamensky, Xiaonan Xue, Sylvia Wassertheil‐Smoller, Matthew Allison, Aladdin H. Shadyab, Robert A. Wild, Yangbo Sun, Hailey R. Banack, Jean Wactawski‐Wende, JoAnn E. Manson, Marcia L. Stefanick, Andrew J. Dannenberg, Thomas E. Rohan, Qibin Qi

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Disease and Adiposity
Canadian institutionsMount Allison University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBody mass indexWaistInternal medicineMyocardial infarctionTrunkObesityCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Excess body weight characterized by higher BMI is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). In individuals with normal BMI, the extent to which body fat distribution may impact CVD risk is unclear, particularly in postmenopausal women who often experience fat redistribution. Hypothesis: We hypothesized a detrimental impact of trunk fat and a favorable impact of leg fat on risk of CVD risk among postmenopausal women with normal BMI. Methods: We analyzed data from 2683 normal-weight (BMI: 18.5-24.9 kg/m 2 ) women in the Women’s Health Initiative study without known CVD at baseline (1993-1998). Body composition including whole body and regional fat mass (FM) were determined by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Incident CVD events including coronary heart disease (coronary death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or coronary revascularization) and stroke were ascertained through February 2017. Results: There were 291 incident cases of CVD during a median 17.9 years of follow-up. After multivariable adjustment, whole body FM or FM percentage was not significantly associated with CVD risk. Higher trunk FM percentage was associated with increased risk of CVD (HR comparing extreme quartiles = 1.91, 95% CI: 1.33-2.74, P -trend <0.001), while higher leg FM percentage was associated with lower risk of CVD (HR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.43-0.89, P -trend = 0.008) ( Figure ). These associations were slightly attenuated but remained significant after further adjustment for waist circumference or waist-to-hip ratio. Higher trunk fat combined with lower leg fat was associated with particularly higher risk of CVD (HR comparing extreme groups = 3.33, 95% CI: 1.46-7.62). Similar significant associations of trunk fat and leg fat were observed for coronary heart disease but not for stroke. Conclusions: Among postmenopausal women with normal BMI, higher trunk fat was associated with increased risk of CVD, while higher leg fat was associated with decreased risk of CVD, independently of central adiposity measures.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculationSame topicCardiovascular Disease and AdiposityFrench-language works237,207