Body mass index and risk of inflammatory bowel disease: A systematic review and dose‐response meta‐analysis of cohort studies of over a million participants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary The relationship between body mass index (BMI) and risk of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is controversial. We performed a dose‐response meta‐analysis to investigate the association between BMI and risk of incident ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD) using prospective cohort studies. A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE/PubMed, SCOPUS, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases from inception to January 2019. DerSimonian and Laird random‐effects model was used to estimate combined hazard ratios (HRs). Overall, 882 articles were screened, and 42 full‐text articles were reviewed for inclusion using the study eligibility criteria. Five studies evaluated the association between BMI and IBD with 1 044 517 participants. Pooled results showed a significant association between participants affected by obesity and risk of CD (HR: 1.42, 95% CI: 1.18‐1.71, I 2 : 0.00). There was a significant nonlinear association between BMI and risk of CD ( P = .01, coeff = 0.5024). Pooled results did not show any significant association between being underweight and risk of UC (HR: 1.07, 95% CI: 0.96‐1.19, I 2 : 0.00) or CD (HR: 1.11, 95% CI: 0.93‐1.31, I 2 : 12.8). There was no difference in the risk for UC among participants affected by obesity compared with participants categorized as having normal BMI (HR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.80‐1.14, I 2 : 8.0). This systematic review and meta‐analysis identified significant dose‐response relationship between being affected by obesity, as a risk factor, and incidence of CD.
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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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.
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".