P226 - Complications du diabète de type2 (D2) chez 414 patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to determine (i) if adults would measure their own waist circumference (WC), (ii) which WC site(s) are the most intuitive and easy to measure and (iii) if measurement accuracy and association between WC and blood pressure differs across five measurement sites. Participants (n = 198) measured their WC first with no instruction and then using visual instructions for the iliac crest, last rib, midpoint, minimal waist and umbilicus. Without instruction, men most commonly measured their WC at the umbilicus and iliac crest, while women measured their WC at the umbilicus and minimal WC. Both men and women reported the minimal waist and umbilicus to be moderately easier to self-measure compared to the other sites (P < 0.05). Prevalence of abdominal obesity varied significantly by gender and measurement site, especially for females (normal weight: 0-18%; overweight: 51-79%). Measurement site did not influence accuracy of WC self-measurement or the association between WC and blood pressure (P > 0.05). A universal WC landmark is needed. From these results, there does not appear to be a clear clinical advantage in terms of blood pressure or practical advantage of measuring one WC site over another. However, the umbilicus may be the most intuitive and easy to measure.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".