MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2922663380 · doi:10.1097/md.0000000000013262

Associations of anthropometric adiposity indexes with hypertension risk

2018· review· en· W2922663380 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Guijuan Deng, Yin Lu, Weida Liu, Xiaoyun Liu, Quanyong Xiang, Zhenzhen Qian, Juntao Ma, Hui Chen, Yang Wang, Bo Hu, Wei Li, Yu Jiang

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsMedicineAnthropometryObesityInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The association between hypertension and obesity has been confirmed, while no agreement has been reached about which anthropometric adiposity index is the best. This meta-analysis aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on the associations of hypertension risk with body mass index (BMI), waist circumstance (WC), waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), and waist-to-height ratio (WHtR), and a prospective urban and rural epidemiology study from China (PURE-China) was added into this meta-analysis as an individual study. METHODS: Systematic literature searching was conducted to identify relevant articles published up to September 2018 in CNKI, WANFANG Data, Web of Science, SinoMed, PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and cross-referencing. Literature reporting the association of hypertension risk with BMI, WC, WHR, and WHtR were defined as eligible. PURE-China data were analyzed and included as 1 eligible study into meta-analyses. Summary odds ratio (OR) and area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were pooled using meta-analysis methods. Heterogeneity and publication bias were evaluated. Subgroups based on gender, country and study design were conducted as well. RESULTS: Thirty-eight original articles including PURE-China were included into meta-analyses, involving 309,585 subjects. WHtR had the strongest association with hypertension risk (OR, 1.68; 95% confidence interval, [CI]:1.29-2.19) and prediction ability (AUC, 70.9%; 95% CI: 67.8%-74.2%), which were also confirmed in subgroup analyses based on gender and country. However, BMI was found to have the highest prediction ability in adjusted models of PURE-China and followed WC, both of which were superior to WHtR (73.7% and 73.4% vs 73.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Our overall meta-analysis further confirmed WHtR as a good indicator at discriminating those individuals at increased risk of hypertension, and in some cases, it is better than BMI, WC, and WHR.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.011
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations57
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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