Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the mortality risk presented by normal-weight central obesity, to identify a clinical measure to aid in the identification of this phenotype, and to explore the means for mitigation of this risk. QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: Only prospective cohort studies (level II) comparing participants with central obesity at normal weight with those at higher levels of body mass index (BMI) were found. Good level I studies were available to demonstrate the effect of diet and exercise interventions on central obesity and mortality. MAIN MESSAGE: Participants with atherogenic dyslipidemia who are centrally obese at normal BMI are at similar, and possibly higher, mortality risk compared with those who are centrally obese and overweight or obese according to their BMI. Waist-to-height ratio might be the most pragmatic clinical measure of central obesity. The Mediterranean diet is an effective intervention to prevent ongoing weight gain while reducing abdominal girth. Low levels of exercise can also reduce waist circumference. Weight loss need not be an objective. CONCLUSION: A waist-to-height ratio exceeding 0.5 at normal BMI identifies elevated mortality risk for cardiometabolic disease. This risk might equal or exceed that of centrally obese patients who are overweight or obese. Modest dietary and exercise interventions can be effective in mitigation of this risk.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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".